On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 18:48 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:59:11PM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > How do you plan to handle the following: > > - foo installs an udev rule > > - install foo with old udev > > - upgrade udev > > > > are rules installed by foo used by new udev ? > > No, they wouldn't be; that is a good reason to question the value of the > eclass itself. Maybe the correct way to do this is to forget the eclass > and just file bugs against packages that break having them move their > rules to the new location and set a dependency on the newer udev. > > This would have to be a rev bump for the broken packages. > > William > > > > > A. > >
So, does that mean the rule itself changes or just the location change is needed? If it is just a location change, a fairly simple udev-updater script would do it. If the pkg needs to be re-compiled to work with/depend on the new udev, then a more complex script would be needed. One more along the line of python-updater/perl-cleaner. -- Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
