Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: evdev broken?
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:14:29
Message-Id: 4E285015.5060406@orlitzky.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: evdev broken? by Neil Bothwick
1 On 07/21/2011 04:57 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
2 > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:34:03 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
3 >
4 >>>> I've always wondered why, if portage knows that has to be done, can't
5 >>>> portage just go ahead and do it?
6 >>>
7 >>> Now that we have a set to do this, I see no reason why this could not
8 >>> be an option, enabled by a USE flag.
9 >>>
10 >>>
11 >>
12 >> The last time I complained about this, someone sent me here:
13 >>
14 >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=192319
15 >
16 > That seems to be discussing ABI changes. The X drivers situation is
17 > different. Also, that issue has largely been resolved, in as much as ABI
18 > changes don't break things like they used to, with @preserved-rebuild.
19 >
20 >
21
22 Huh? If implemented, that would allow
23 FORCEREBUILD=x11-drivers/xf86-input* on major Xorg upgrades.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: evdev broken? Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>