On 01/04/14 20:16, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 04/01/2014 11:55 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 01/04/14 18:28, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:23:43 +0000
>>> hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And this is going to get worse if people don't trust them. Currently
>>>> it looks more like a loose club, instead of a team with strong
>>>> hierarchical structure, which is the only thing that enables a quick
>>>> line of action if needed. And that is one of its purposes, afaiu.
>>> There is a strong structure present; for policy enforcement and
>>> breakage prevention, we have the ability to 1) act until there is
>> And let's be perfectly clear here, nothing was, or is broken.
>
> Mar 27 18:07:51 <ssuominen> i wouldn't mind going for
> =virtual/{udev,libudev,libgudev}-212
> Mar 27 18:08:09 <ssuominen> ...and leaving eudev out... :P
By "leaving eudev out", I meant it literally, dropping whole eudev from
the old and new virtuals. It was meant
as a bad joke, as I was in one-on-one discussion with the systemd
maintainer.
A joke, nothing more. As you know, I involved *you* before anything like
that was even going to
happen, read below:
>
> Mar 28 10:10:11 <ulm> so who will fix the mess resulting from
> virtual/libgudev?
> Mar 28 10:10:44 <ulm> such things should be package masked, instead
> of breaking the tree
>
> Mar 28 10:33:01 <ulm> blueness: eudev-1.5.3-r1 depends on
> virtual/udev depends on virtual/libgudev depends on >=eudev-9999
> Mar 28 10:33:02 <ulm> ???
> Mar 28 10:33:12 <ulm> that doesn't make any sense
At this time, the compability =virtual/udev-208-r2 was not in Portage
yet and nothing depended on those two new virtuals.
So ulm made an observation, that there is an unfinished work in the tree.
And indeed, there was, you know, we handle packages in a monolithic way
in tree, not everything can go in at the same time
like in git.
First, the 2 virtuals were committed to tree, then eudev-1.5.3-r1 was
converted to multilib, then the libgudev was converted for the 1.5.3-r1,
and then the compability virtual was committed to Portage.
So not, at any time, eudev users saw their implementation being replaced
by another by the PM.
>
> [Aside: At this point i was still trying to make sense of what was
> going on]
>
> Mar 28 11:24:17 <blueness> ssuominen, again, can i ask you to
> please take a look at eudev-9999 and see if everything is okay?
> Mar 28 11:24:18 <Zero_Chaos> ssuominen: actually I don't believe
> subslots are supposed to work with virtuals at all, that really wasn't
> considered when subslots was designed.
> Mar 28 11:25:04 <ssuominen> blueness: no changes in cvs...
Here I pointed out that whatever you wanted me to review for 9999, was
not committed yet, so I could review it as per request.
You can't review what you can't see.
>
> I have the entire log in case the next emails says stuff was taken out
> of context.
Yes, completely out of context, but you'd have to post timelines from
the commits as well, for the log to mean anything.
I'm sorry, but you are making a big mistake now, as fun as it would have
been if things would have been as you presented them now.
- Samuli
