Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 11:32:00 +0300 Gevisz wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:38:34 +0300 > Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > > > On 03/06/14 14:30, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > > > now. A proper solution would have been to have the upowe

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:38:34 +0300 Samuli Suominen wrote: > > On 03/06/14 14:30, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > > now. A proper solution would have been to have the upower ebuild > > select systemd as a dependency ONLY when the system

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 06/03/2014 06:46 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:26:48 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > >> Quick question though. What's the benefit of using '-1' there? So the >> package doesn't get added to the world list? Or are there some extra >> benefits? > That is more than sufficient

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:26:48 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > Quick question though. What's the benefit of using '-1' there? So the > package doesn't get added to the world list? Or are there some extra > benefits? That is more than sufficient benefit. Having upower-pm-utils in @world could caus

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 06/03/2014 02:19 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > Sounds like the original poster had the right answer. Starting a > systemd flamewar is not helpful. > > "emerge -1 sys-power/upower-pm-utils" should fix this. > > However, this probably should have been a news item before going into > the stable tree..

[gentoo-user] Re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:11 + "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > now. AIUI from , no one is maintaining systemd-independent power management anywhere upstream any more. As of now, t

[gentoo-user] Re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 3 Jun 2014 07:19:00 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:30 AM, J. Roeleveld > wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:59:07 AM Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > >> > >> Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below > >> correctly. So far, I've been using sys-power

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 03/06/14 14:48, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > Then the dependencies should have been fixed prior to making this stable. And that's exactly what happened.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On 03/06/14 14:30, J. Roeleveld wrote: > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > now. A proper solution would have been to have the upower ebuild > select systemd as a dependency ONLY when the systemd useflag is set. > And depend on upower-pm-utils when it is not set.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:13 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > It is marked stable. Otherwise it wouldn't cause blockers because it > attempts to force an installation of systemd. The issue isn't really that upower requires systemd so much as that portage can't figure out that it makes more sense in this

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

It is marked stable. Otherwise it wouldn't cause blockers because it attempts to force an installation of systemd. -- Joost On 3 June 2014 12:06:26 CEST, Peter Humphrey wrote: >On Tuesday 03 June 2014 11:48:22 J. Roeleveld wrote: > >> Then the dependencies should have been fixed prior to making

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:30 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:59:07 AM Alexander Kapshuk wrote: >> >> Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below correctly. >> So far, I've been using sys-power/upower. Attempting to update >> sys-power/upower seems to require s

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tuesday 03 June 2014 11:48:22 J. Roeleveld wrote: > Then the dependencies should have been fixed prior to making this stable. Actually, though it may be marked as stable, it isn't, by which I mean that I can't emerge -uaDvN world today - I get udev and systemd blocking each other. I ran anothe

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:39:39 AM Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:11 + > > "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > > now. > > Which is a lot better than to have it break by the lack thereof. > > > A proper solution wo

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:30:11 + "J. Roeleveld" wrote: > Sounds like Samuli is being a pr*ck by forcing systemd on everyone > now. Which is a lot better than to have it break by the lack thereof. > A proper solution would have been to have the upower ebuild > select systemd as a dependency ON

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

On Tuesday, June 03, 2014 11:59:07 AM Alexander Kapshuk wrote: > Howdy, > > Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below correctly. > So far, I've been using sys-power/upower. Attempting to update > sys-power/upower seems to require sys-apps/systemd to be pulled in as a > dependency

[gentoo-user] re: sys-power/upower-pm-utils

Howdy, Just wanted to make sure I read the change logs shown below correctly. So far, I've been using sys-power/upower. Attempting to update sys-power/upower seems to require sys-apps/systemd to be pulled in as a dependency, which I don't want to do. If I understand the change log below correctly