Re: [gentoo-dev] New virtuals for libudev and libgudev

[Rick \\\"Zero_Chaos\\\" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/29/2014 12:13 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> You broke the gentoo-x86 by masking these virtuals without the already
> converted reverse
> dependencies.
No, I didn't, before accusing people of breaking the tree you may want
to cvs up.

> Plus I told you to not bother me about this until there is something
> broken, or you get
> this banned by the PMS, or you get this feature dropped from the PM.
>
Your input was considered.

> I took the liberty to unbreak the tree for you. Don't ever touch my
> packages again unless
> they are broken.
You didn't unbreak the tree, you reverted a QA mask without permission.
 A comrel bug was opened for this, I'm sure they won't care at all.

Your input will be considered here with all the weight it deserves.  My
mask was to force this discussion on the list and it has done it's job well.

Thanks,
Zero
>
>
> On 28/03/14 23:48, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>> Recently, without discussion as suggested by the dev manual, new
>> virtuals were added for libudev and libgudev.
>>
>> These virtuals are different than any virtuals use in gentoo in the
>> past, and due to this, I fell the discussion step is critical. As such,
>> I have put a temporary QA mask on these virtuals.
>>
>> All below information is based on my understanding of what is happening
>> and why, since these new virtuals were added with no previous
>> discussion, I can only guess why things were done as they were.
>>
>> These new virtuals represent a new idea in how to avoid needless subslot
>> rebuilds.  In this case, it occurs that libudev and libgudev (both part
>> of the udev package at this time) can (and do) change soname separately.
>>  This means that it is impossible to perform just needed subslot
>> rebuilds since the package udev can only have one subslot.
>>
>> To battle this, virtual/libudev and virtual/libgudev were introduced,
>> each with the subslot indicating version of their namesake.  In this
>> way, packages which currently dep on virtual/udev can be adjusted to dep
>> on one or both of the new virtuals and possibly avoid unneeded subslot
>> rebuilds.
>>
>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first
>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up.  How many other
>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can
>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more.  Is it really
>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into
>> multiple different virtuals like this?
>>
>> Discussion, go.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Zero
>>
>
>
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=xzP+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----