| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:41:04 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 18:48 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:59:11PM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > How do you plan to handle the following: |
| 7 |
> > > - foo installs an udev rule |
| 8 |
> > > - install foo with old udev |
| 9 |
> > > - upgrade udev |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > are rules installed by foo used by new udev ? |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > No, they wouldn't be; that is a good reason to question the value |
| 14 |
> > of the eclass itself. Maybe the correct way to do this is to forget |
| 15 |
> > the eclass and just file bugs against packages that break having |
| 16 |
> > them move their rules to the new location and set a dependency on |
| 17 |
> > the newer udev. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > This would have to be a rev bump for the broken packages. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > William |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > > |
| 24 |
> > > A. |
| 25 |
> > > |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> So, does that mean the rule itself changes or just the location change |
| 28 |
> is needed? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> If it is just a location change, a fairly simple udev-updater script |
| 31 |
> would do it. |
| 32 |
[...] |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
how do you handle the package manager database containing the location |
| 35 |
of the file ? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
A. |
Archives