1 |
Michał Górny posted on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:46:06 +0100 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> 4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks at |
4 |
> documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev |
5 |
> diverges from upstream udev to this point? |
6 |
|
7 |
IMO that's the most important of the four issues. |
8 |
|
9 |
While I switched to systemd some some time ago (I guess it's close to two |
10 |
years?), for those choosing openrc, given udev/systemd's upstream plans |
11 |
to go kdbus and hard-lockin to kdbus enabled kernels when that happens, |
12 |
plus the fact that they strongly discourage and don't really support |
13 |
separate udev already, it just doesn't make sense to me to default to |
14 |
systemd-udev on a non-systemd system. |
15 |
|
16 |
But strong documentation is one of the things I appreciated about gentoo |
17 |
back in the day, it's one of the things I appreciate about systemd today, |
18 |
and it sounds like it's the biggest thing lacking in eudev, certainly so |
19 |
going forward from that kdbus thing coming to pass (*IF* it does, the |
20 |
jury, with Linus as the jury foreman, is still out on that one) in |
21 |
upstream systemd-udev and kernel and apps eventually being built assuming |
22 |
that, as at that point it's unlikely that eudev users will simply be able |
23 |
to use udev documentation any longer, as they can in general practice, |
24 |
today. |
25 |
|
26 |
Of the first three issues, #1 (conflict-induced fork) and #2 (vanilla api) |
27 |
really don't apply so much to (e)udev as to systemd -- if you're a |
28 |
programmer targeting "vanilla", by definition, these days you're |
29 |
targeting systemd, and if you're *not* targeting systemd, by definition, |
30 |
you're no longer targeting vanilla and are thus dealing with all sorts of |
31 |
adaptations already, and both users and devs are already in a non-vanilla |
32 |
choice once they've chosen non-systemd. Doing the same for eudev vs udev |
33 |
will add only trifling incrementally to that, like arguing whether taking |
34 |
a taxi or the city bus to your hotel will be faster, once you've chosen |
35 |
to go by cruise ship instead of airline. |
36 |
|
37 |
#3 (eudev falling behind at times) could be a bit of a problem, but if it |
38 |
has been ahead at times as well, as already argued, without further |
39 |
information on specific instances, it's impossible to judge and thus is a |
40 |
wash. |
41 |
|
42 |
Meanwhile, missing documentation affects all three of those as well as |
43 |
being its own, very critical, point. If there's a reason to oppose the |
44 |
default switch, it'd be that, and that's where I believe some focus will |
45 |
need to be for eudev to be taken seriously, long-term, particularly given |
46 |
how well systemd is documented, making it easy for developers and users |
47 |
alike to simply settle on it as their standard, leaving support for other |
48 |
alternatives to those who might feel the need to develop and document |
49 |
them, and if they're not documented, well... |
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
53 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
54 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |