| 1 |
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:52:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual |
| 5 |
>>> was, and both cause and result were quite clear. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any |
| 8 |
>> mission critical apps, and that would include the virtual/udev as well. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> That said - shouldn't this be taken care of by the the virtual/udev |
| 11 |
>> package itself? Shoudln't it keep track of what versions of udev *and* |
| 12 |
>> eudev it supports, and warn you (via a [B]blocker)? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and |
| 15 |
> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in |
| 20 |
/var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does |
| 21 |
As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted |
| 22 |
implementation is recorded in the world file or not |
Archives