| 1 |
On 08/06/2012 01:42 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06-08-2012 13:37:55 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> Also, I'm not so sure if this will work correctly for Prefix. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> I'm sure that is easily checked and we will get feedback quickly. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I'm sure systemd/udev will never run in (a) Prefix, so perhaps it is |
| 8 |
> more sensical not to pseudo-provide support for it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
after thinking about this over: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
rules files are often small and often get always installed, yet the |
| 14 |
package might be running just fine without udev, the installed rules |
| 15 |
files just don't get used |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
therefore adding sys-fs/udev dependency to the eclass is out of question |
| 18 |
and should be left for ebuilds |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
therefore pseudo-prefix support should be left in place too... right? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
attaching latest based on mgorny's feedback... |
Archives