On Tuesday 23 May 2006 13:25, Harald van Dijk wrote: > How does it help? New-style virtuals have several disadvantages, and the > usual advantages of new-style virtuals don't apply here. If it actually > provides real benefits, then no objections from me, but how is this > easier to maintain than a "virtual/eject sys-block/unieject" entry in > the default-bsd profile? I should have explained what my whole plan was, probably :)
Currently there are things provided by sys-apps/eject that are not available on either unieject or eject-bsd.. the final idea was, from my part, to identify those features in three versions "0a 0b 0c" (the 0 version is to avoid collisions between virtual/eject and sys-apps/eject binpks). 0a would be simply the basic eject command, what it is now. 0b would be basic eject + --trayclose (needed by rip for instance) 0c would be ability to eject usb/scsi devices. The first case is the dependency as it is now, the second is eject or unieject, the third would be just eject and thus not keyworded ~x86-fbsd at all. When I'll be able to provide 0c features in unieject, I'd add that to 0c. The need for usb/scsi eject is given by libgpod and related :) -- Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
pgpVxNGdS8vFK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
