On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 19:50:42 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 07:25 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > > On 07/11/2012 07:48 PM, 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. > > Perhaps a new ebuild helper would be best here? It seems no one > > knows where to install udev rules in the first place (I know I > > didn't till a recent version of portage yelled at me with a QA > > warning). > > > > How about dorule/newrule? > > I guess then we'd need the installed udev to set an environment > variable via /etc/env.d, in order to control the location where the > rules are installed? Having the location of installed files depend on environment variables always sounded bad practices to me. Maybe it is quite common, but I remember specifically hardcoding paths in TeXLive's ebuilds/eclasses to avoid this behavior. A.
