[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-user
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev
From:       Tanstaafl <tanstaafl () libertytrek ! org>
Date:       2013-08-12 11:37:29
Message-ID: 5208C8F9.5040205 () libertytrek ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
>> virtual/udev? Or both?

> It has to do with how virtuals work.
>
> If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the packages that satisfy
> the virtual are in world, then portage is free to do whatever it deems
> correct to satisfy the virtual. This is what it did, and it is rather
> important you understand why this is so.
>
> If you have the virtual in world, and one of the packages that satisfy
> the virtual are in world, then portage will not uninstall that package
> and instead obey your instruction.

Ok, I'm getting there...

I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do* 
have virtual/udev.

So, based on what Samuli said about sys-fs/udev being the gentoo default 
(where is this documented by the way?), seems the simplest thing to do 
is add sys-fs/eudev to @world, but is this really the most appropriate 
'gentoo way'?

Or, maybe just remove virtual/udev from @world? Or both (add 
sys-fs/eudev, remove virtual/udev)?

Actually, since udev/eudev are more appropriately @system packages, it 
would make more sense to add them there - except @system is defined not 
by a file but by the profile, and so would require a USE flag to define 
this, but if I recall, adding a USE flag for this was decided against 
(why I don't know)...

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]