On 29/03/14 14:30, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 03/28/2014 07:53 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> All in all, this isn't a bad idea on the surface, but the first >>> arguement shows immediately when this is scaled up. How many other >>> packages have multiple libs with different sonames? Off hand, I can >>> think of poplar, but I'm sure there must be more. Is it really >>> scalable, desirable, or sane, to break each package on the system into >>> multiple different virtuals like this? >> Clever idea, actually, though I'd be interested in whether anybody >> else can think of any unintended consequences. >> > My objection to what happened with the introduction of these virtuals > was that they directly affected eudev and yet the eudev team was not > consulted.
eudev developer was contacted before any real impact on tree was made to make an ebuild-only change to build multilib libgudev like udev and systemd does at which point any objections could have been raised, instead, like expected, the version of eudev was provided to move forward, and we did so I don't agree with your assesment of not being consulted, when you were
