On 03/29/2014 09:23 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 03/29/2014 08:58 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
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
Not before the decision was made to go ahead with the change.
Consulting means input before the decision.
Following up on this, do you have any objection to me co-maintianing
those virtuals?
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : [email protected]
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
