On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:11:18 +0200
> Peter Alfredsen wrote:
>
>> This outcome was just super. Systemd was bumped to -188 today. Udev is
>> still at -187. Instead of actually listening to upstream[1], which
>> would be easy with a virtual, we'
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:11:18 +0200
Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> This outcome was just super. Systemd was bumped to -188 today. Udev is
> still at -187. Instead of actually listening to upstream[1], which
> would be easy with a virtual, we're now stuck with one part of the duo
> being at one version a
This outcome was just super. Systemd was bumped to -188 today. Udev is
still at -187. Instead of actually listening to upstream[1], which
would be easy with a virtual, we're now stuck with one part of the duo
being at one version and the other part of the duo another. And when I
login to X with thi
Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:33:10 +0200
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:24:27 -0500
>>> William Hubbs wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> Since nowadays udev is
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 19:33:10 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:24:27 -0500
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> Hello, all.
> >>>
> >>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we
Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:24:27 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Hello, all.
>>>
>>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
>>> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:24:27 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> > libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> > the long st
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Peter Alfredsen
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:27:41 -0400
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best
>>> way to go here.
>>
>> A consolidated package
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:27:41 -0400
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best
>> way to go here.
>
> A consolidated package means that:
>
> - every change made by udev developers would have
Il 11/07/2012 22:33, Mike Gilbert ha scritto:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:27:41PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
Just to put a number to this, there are currently 126 packages in the
tree with a dependency on sys-fs/udev.
Personally, I think a
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:27:41 -0400
Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best
> way to go here.
A consolidated package means that:
- every change made by udev developers would have to be reviewed by
systemd team to make sure it doesn't break syst
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:33:44PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Thinking on this, I agree with Mike here, and to make it easier for
> > maintainers so they don't have to change their dependencies, it should
> > be a udev ebuild with a syste
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 3:54 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:27:41PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> Just to put a number to this, there are currently 126 packages in the
>> tree with a dependency on sys-fs/udev.
>>
>> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:27:41PM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> Just to put a number to this, there are currently 126 packages in the
> tree with a dependency on sys-fs/udev.
>
> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best
> way to go here. Short of that, the virtual + bloc
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200
>> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>
>>> Michał Górny schrieb:
Hello, all.
Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
libudev providers: >=sys-apps
Michał Górny schrieb:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> Hello, all.
>>>
>>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
>>> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
>>> the long story short, I
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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.
I'
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:35:32 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200
> > Thomas Sachau wrote:
> >> As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the
> >> udev files with systemd, which is the be
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200
> Thomas Sachau 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 tha
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:23:39 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> > libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> > the long story short, I would like to introduce a v
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:31:03 +0300
Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> >
> > Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> > libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> > the long story short, I woul
Il 11/07/2012 10:03, Samuli Suominen ha scritto:
>
>
> so knowing all that, I would simply kill USE=hwdb and always pull in the
> package, as it used to be for avoiding pulling in the actual
> pciutils/usbutils with their dependencies, but is not worth for the
> separate hwids package anymore
So
On 07/10/2012 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
Hello, all.
Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
which would pull in either of those t
On 07/10/2012 06:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
An alternative would be to provide separate virtual/libudev
and virtual/libgudev; and maybe changing ebuilds not to depend on
[hwids] but rather pull in sys-apps/hwids directly (since that's what
the flag does).
USE=hwdb should be reviewed:
>udev-180
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:51:50 +0800
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 03:23, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> > Michał Górny schrieb:
> >> Hello, all.
> >>
> >> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> >> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> >>
On 11 July 2012 03:23, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
>> Hello, all.
>>
>> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
>> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
>> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello, all.
>
> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
> which wou
Michał Górny schrieb:
> Hello, all.
>
> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
> which would pull in either of those two.
>
> The
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 07:57:50PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:54:31 -0400
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0200
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
> > > and the third was uncondition
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:54:31 -0400
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
> > and the third was unconditional.
>
> since udev-171 seems to be going stable, why not simply drop the
> 'e
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:00 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> The former two were previously provided by 'extras' USE flag,
> and the third was unconditional.
since udev-171 seems to be going stable, why not simply drop the
'extras' compatibility ?
then you could just use 'gudev?' usedeps it seems
A
Hello, all.
Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two
libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making
the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for libudev
which would pull in either of those two.
There are three USE flags used in conditi
32 matches
Mail list logo
