| 1 |
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and |
| 4 |
>> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in |
| 7 |
> /var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does |
| 8 |
> As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted |
| 9 |
> implementation is recorded in the world file or not |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well, in my opinion, that just seems wrong. Why does it prefer udev, if |
| 12 |
*neither* is in the world file? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
In my opinion, it should be a 'B' blocker in both cases. It absolutely |
| 15 |
should not automatically uninstall eudev and install udev, potentially |
| 16 |
leaving the system in an unbootable state. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But... as long as the conflict is there (for those who actually look |
| 19 |
for such things) and I can deal with it appropriately - ie, if a small b |
| 20 |
blocker and it wants to remove eudev and install udev, I just wait until ... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or |
| 23 |
virtual/udev? Or both? |
Archives