On 03/29/2014 09:33 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
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.
Others have these logs and are better judges of the responses. Let the
community read the responses for themselves.
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.
This implies to the list that I made any changes. I did not touch or
mask any of these packages. In fact, I asked you to please look at the
eudev ebuilds to make sure they would work with the new virtual structure.
Furthermore, I am in favor of discussion. You ask of me precisely what
I ask of you. It is a good thing that we discuss these changes together.
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
Again, let the community judge "common sense". If eudev is added, then
that means we get to follow these packages as needed. It is not my
intention to obstruct what udev and systemd are doing, but to make sure
that the eudev ebuilds are not marginalized.
As for "main" providers, there are other distributions that are now
adopting eudev such as Linux From Scratch [1] and Crux is considering it
[2].
Ref.
[1]
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/eudev.html
[2] http://crux.nu/Wiki/TODO31
--
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
