On 29/03/14 15:24, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > 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? >
With the inappropiate feedback I got from yesterday from you in #gentoo-dev, I'm not sure you are the best fit for maintaining any of these. However, I suppose both of [email protected] and [email protected] should still be in metadata.xml of the virtuals as co-maintainers. But it doesn't mean you get to do dramatical changes to them without first discussing it with the main providers maintainers, that is, sys-fs/udev, and WilliamH and me. Dramatical changes, such as unannouncedly reverting others changes, masking them, etc. I shouldn't even be needing to tell any of this, as common sense should prevail, but lately it has been lost, so covering basis. Don't take insult of it. +1 for adding systemd and eudev to metadata.xml
