| 1 |
On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 5 |
>>> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first |
| 7 |
>>>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other |
| 8 |
>>>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can |
| 9 |
>>>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really |
| 10 |
>>>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into |
| 11 |
>>>> multiple different virtuals like this? |
| 12 |
>>> Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody |
| 13 |
>>> else can think of any unintended consequences. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>> My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals |
| 16 |
>> was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not |
| 17 |
>> consulted. |
| 18 |
> eudev developer was contacted before any real impact on tree was made to |
| 19 |
> make an ebuild-only change to build multilib libgudev like udev and systemd |
| 20 |
> does |
| 21 |
> at which point any objections could have been raised, instead, like |
| 22 |
> expected, the version of eudev was provided to move forward, and we did |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> so I don't agree with your assesment of not being consulted, when you were |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
Not before the decision was made to go ahead with the change. Consulting |
| 27 |
means input before the decision. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 32 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 33 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 34 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives