| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:49:04PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> [ snip ] |
| 4 |
> > 9) Otherwise, at very minimum, they're failing the "build udev pretty |
| 5 |
> > much the same as before" |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> ./configure |
| 8 |
> make |
| 9 |
> make install |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You fail to see the matter from their POV. They don't care (that much) |
| 12 |
> about building, because the distributions they care about use binary |
| 13 |
> prebuilt packages. In that sense, "build udev pretty much the same as |
| 14 |
> before" is the holly trinity of "./configure; make; make install". |
| 15 |
> Otherwise the part about "package only what is necessary" has not that |
| 16 |
> much sense. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Which again leads to the "please, add a virtual/udev" so the people |
| 19 |
> using systemd don't need to built udev twice. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Unless we add sys-apps/systemd to virtual/dev-manager. |
| 22 |
If we do that I don't see a need for virtual/udev. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Also, I don't see how systemd users are building udev twice as it |
| 25 |
currently stands. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
William |
Archives