On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
/var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does
As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted
implementation is recorded in the world file or not
Well, in my opinion, that just seems wrong. Why does it prefer udev, if
*neither* is in the world file?
In my opinion, it should be a 'B' blocker in both cases. It absolutely
should not automatically uninstall eudev and install udev, potentially
leaving the system in an unbootable state.
But... as long as the conflict is there (for those who actually look
for such things) and I can deal with it appropriately - ie, if a small b
blocker and it wants to remove eudev and install udev, I just wait until ...
Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
virtual/udev? Or both?
