On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:35:32 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200 > > Thomas Sachau <to...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the > >> udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and > >> the virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we > >> even start to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual. > > > > Do you have a technical or policy reason prohibiting me from > > maintaining a systemd ebuild following the upstream policies? > > > > It sounds like we have two packages that COULD provide udev - udev and > systemd. If we decide for both of them to provide udev then we need a > virtual and they need to block (which should make switching more fun). > If we decide to keep using the udev package to install udev then we > don't need a virtual. No, switching is no fun. It's plain simple with weak blockers. It's even their purpose. > I'd view this like the split kde ebuilds. Upstream ships a monster > tarball, and we install it in chunks. Just because upstream ships > both packages together doesn't require us to install them together. > From a code-reuse standpoint and ease of transition standpoint it > makes sense to keep them split, as long as we can have everybody > continue to use the same udev codebase. Are you aware how much additional code and maintenance does keeping two hacked build systems introduce? One of things I don't want to do is keeping the list of *all other* systemd targets up-to-date, and installing them all by hand. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
