| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2013-08-01, o godz. 17:17:35 |
| 3 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 01/08/13 17:04, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > There is a hack in our udev and kmod ebuilds that makes it possible to |
| 7 |
>> > build the static libraries, but I think we should remove that hack since |
| 8 |
>> > upstream bans building them. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Thanks for the clarification - that makes sense. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
>> Anyway I volunteered Federico to sort out this mess and he got that part |
| 13 |
>> more or less done. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If you're willing to do the work I think the teams should be willing |
| 17 |
to allow you to support the necessary changes. That is, assuming that |
| 18 |
the changes aren't so intrusive that they create a real potential for |
| 19 |
bugs/etc. You would of course have to keep up. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> So esystemd and ekmod now? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If the changes are really extensive then that might be the better |
| 25 |
solution unless upstream is interested in accepting the changes. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That all assumes lu_zero wants to support all these packages. If not |
| 28 |
then the maintainers can drop support if they wish, and just set |
| 29 |
deps/blockers accordingly. If portage doesn't handle the resulting |
| 30 |
resolution issues properly that would seem to be a portage bug - this |
| 31 |
isn't really a typical configuration in any case. I'd be more |
| 32 |
concerned if it came up by default if you installed a stage3 and did |
| 33 |
an emerge gnome. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives