On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 16:51 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-05-31 at 02:24 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:21:06AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 12:01 +0200, David Herrmann wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt < > > > > > > martin.p...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey David, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David Herrmann [2015-05-19 17:06 +0200]: > > > > > > > > We're about to remove gudev from the systemd > > > > > > > > repository, as > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > is in > > > > > > > > no way related to the systemd code-base, nor used by > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > systemd > > > > > > > > project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This makes sense indeed. gudev used to be a standalone > > > > > > > project > > > > > > > before > > > > > > > it was merged into udev, so the circle is complete now : > > > > > > > -) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those of us who already packaged gudev from systemd > > > > > > > 219, > > > > > > > would it > > > > > > > be possible to bump the current release to 220, so that > > > > > > > gudev > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > packaged without renaming the tarball and doing ugly > > > > > > > version > > > > > > > numbers? > > > > > > > Monotonously increasing version numbers and all.. (Yes, > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > "epochs" in Debian, and I'm sure RPM has these too, but > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > might not > > > > > > > be available everywhere and are generally frowned upon) > > > > > > > > > > > > While you are at it, why not bump it to 225 or something > > > > > > (just > > > > > > to > > > > > > guarantee that the last systemd release with gudev has a > > > > > > lower > > > > > > version > > > > > > number than gudev at that time, so people can switch over > > > > > > whenever > > > > > > they want without having to worry about going backwards). > > > > > > > > > > I intend to apply patches to systemd-git until we finally > > > > > removed > > > > > it > > > > > there. Given that we had 0 patches so far this year, it'll > > > > > probably > > > > > stay that way. Hence, there's no hurry in replacing gudev > > > > > from > > > > > systemd > > > > > with libgudev. It'd be enough to just drop the systemd sub > > > > > -package > > > > > and > > > > > provide a new libgudev package, even if that might not > > > > > forcefully > > > > > update the package. > > > > > > > > > > However, I see no reason not to bump it, so I'll gladly > > > > > follow > > > > > the > > > > > packager's demands: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/systemd > > > > > -devs/libgudev/commit/f6203336e5b1ccf896acc506b54ec895fdae98b > > > > > 4 > > > > > > > > > > @Bastien: At your convenience, can you cherry-pick this and > > > > > do > > > > > another > > > > > release? Should have done this right away, sorry! > > > > > > > > Could you file this in our new Bugzilla? Otherwise, I end up > > > > losing > > > > track of it... > > > > > > Hi Bastien, > > > > > > do you have any plans for the package in Fedora? > > > > I don't plan on packaging it in the short term, so if there are > > volunteers, go right ahead. > OK, I'll prepare a review request. > > @David: could you make a release of gudev 230? There's a few patches > on top gudev 219 currently, and I think it would be less error-prone > to package the released version with the bumped version number.
/me patiently waits for the bugzilla patches to be uploaded... _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel