On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:41:04 -0700 Brian Dolbec <dol...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 18:48 -0500, 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. > > > > This would have to be a rev bump for the broken packages. > > > > William > > > > > > > > A. > > > > > So, does that mean the rule itself changes or just the location change > is needed? > > If it is just a location change, a fairly simple udev-updater script > would do it. [...] how do you handle the package manager database containing the location of the file ? A.
