| 1 |
Il 11/07/2012 22:33, Mike Gilbert ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, William Hubbs<williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:27:41PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Just to put a number to this, there are currently 126 packages in the |
| 5 |
>>> tree with a dependency on sys-fs/udev. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best |
| 8 |
>>> way to go here. Short of that, the virtual + blockers seems like an |
| 9 |
>>> acceptable solution. |
| 10 |
>> Thinking on this, I agree with Mike here, and to make it easier for |
| 11 |
>> maintainers so they don't have to change their dependencies, it should |
| 12 |
>> be a udev ebuild with a systemd use flag. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> An alternative to the funky udev[systemd] solution would be to replace |
| 15 |
> the entire udev ebuild with RDEPEND="sys-apps/systemd", and implement |
| 16 |
> the requisite logic in the systemd ebuild. This would effectively make |
| 17 |
> udev a virtual package without the need to modify any other packages. |
| 18 |
Long time ago portage managed virtual/* ebuilds differently from the |
| 19 |
others, it may be wise to ask to the portage developers if that's still |
| 20 |
the case and why/what is done. |
Archives