| 1 |
On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or |
| 4 |
>> virtual/udev? Or both? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> It has to do with how virtuals work. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the packages that satisfy |
| 9 |
> the virtual are in world, then portage is free to do whatever it deems |
| 10 |
> correct to satisfy the virtual. This is what it did, and it is rather |
| 11 |
> important you understand why this is so. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If you have the virtual in world, and one of the packages that satisfy |
| 14 |
> the virtual are in world, then portage will not uninstall that package |
| 15 |
> and instead obey your instruction. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Ok, I'm getting there... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do* |
| 20 |
have virtual/udev. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So, based on what Samuli said about sys-fs/udev being the gentoo default |
| 23 |
(where is this documented by the way?), seems the simplest thing to do |
| 24 |
is add sys-fs/eudev to @world, but is this really the most appropriate |
| 25 |
'gentoo way'? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Or, maybe just remove virtual/udev from @world? Or both (add |
| 28 |
sys-fs/eudev, remove virtual/udev)? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Actually, since udev/eudev are more appropriately @system packages, it |
| 31 |
would make more sense to add them there - except @system is defined not |
| 32 |
by a file but by the profile, and so would require a USE flag to define |
| 33 |
this, but if I recall, adding a USE flag for this was decided against |
| 34 |
(why I don't know)... |
Archives