| 1 |
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 |
| 2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ohey, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I've opened a bug at: |
| 7 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. |
| 10 |
> For existing installs this has zero impact. |
| 11 |
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The rationale behind this is: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> * eudev is an in-house fork, and there's more than a dozen distros |
| 16 |
> already using it by default that are not us. Which is a little bit weird ... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's not an argument. I can also fork random system components. Would |
| 19 |
you consider that a reason to replace the defaults with our 'in-house' |
| 20 |
forks? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be |
| 23 |
> any user-visible changes |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd) |
| 26 |
> since at least 2012 |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> (see for example: |
| 29 |
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-June/005516.html |
| 30 |
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/618 |
| 31 |
> ) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> So it'd be (1) following upstreams recommendations and (2) dogfooding |
| 34 |
> our own tools. I don't see any downsides to this :) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I'm strongly against this, because: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
1. It is a conflict-induced fork. As such, it will never be merged |
| 39 |
upstream and it will never be supported upstream. In fact, it is |
| 40 |
continually forces to follow upstream changes and adapt to them. eudev |
| 41 |
is more likely to break because of the Gentoo developer(s) working hard |
| 42 |
to merge upstream changes to their incompatible code. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
2. Many of Gentoo users are programmers who appreciate the 'vanilla' |
| 45 |
API experience Gentoo often provides. Switching the defaults to a fork |
| 46 |
that is known to intentionally diverge from upstream goes against that |
| 47 |
principle. Programs written against eudev may not work correctly with |
| 48 |
upstream udev. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
3. eudev has fallen behind systemd/udev more than once in the past, |
| 51 |
and caused visible breakage to users this way. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks |
| 54 |
at documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev |
| 55 |
diverges from upstream udev to this point? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Best regards, |
| 59 |
Michał Górny |
| 60 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives