| 1 |
Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 6 |
>>> Hello, all. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two |
| 9 |
>>> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making |
| 10 |
>>> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for |
| 11 |
>>> libudev which would pull in either of those two. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> There are three USE flags used in conditionals when depending on |
| 14 |
>>> udev: |
| 15 |
>>> - gudev - for glib wrapper on udev, |
| 16 |
>>> - hwdb - to pull in hwids, |
| 17 |
>>> - static-libs. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag, |
| 20 |
>>> and the third was unconditional. |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>>> I'm attaching an example virtual/libudev which does the job. Sadly, |
| 23 |
>>> because of the 'extras' compatibility it's a big ugly conditional. |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> An alternative would be to provide separate virtual/libudev |
| 26 |
>>> and virtual/libgudev; and maybe changing ebuilds not to depend on |
| 27 |
>>> [hwids] but rather pull in sys-apps/hwids directly (since that's |
| 28 |
>>> what the flag does). |
| 29 |
>>> |
| 30 |
>>> What are you thoughts? |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the |
| 33 |
>> udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and the |
| 34 |
>> virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we even start |
| 35 |
>> to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Do you have a technical or policy reason prohibiting me from maintaining |
| 38 |
> a systemd ebuild following the upstream policies? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
How about this simple one: The udev ebuild does already install udev, so |
| 41 |
why should we have another package also installing the same thing, |
| 42 |
resulting in a blocker, the need to switch from one package to another |
| 43 |
and the need for package maintainers to switch their dependencies? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Since William already said, that he will move the udev installation to |
| 46 |
/usr/lib, i dont see any technical reason left to not simply depend on |
| 47 |
the udev ebuild. |
| 48 |
And if you fear issues about not knowing which parts to install, then |
| 49 |
just check the files installed by the udev ebuild, remove them from your |
| 50 |
systemd ebuild and you are done. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
>> So for now: A clear no, i am against adding a virtual/libudev ebuild. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Please give the rationale. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
I did above. So if you still want to install udev yourself, please give |
| 57 |
the rationale for doing so. And neither upstream naming nor a big |
| 58 |
upstream tarball nor the Makefile do force this, so please exclude those |
| 59 |
points. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 65 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives