| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Seriously though, it makes more sense to have a conservative default |
| 5 |
> (udev-settle). Especially since OpenRC is not well-equipped to deal |
| 6 |
> with event-based device management. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
It seems to me that the problem is one of somebody not caring that the |
| 10 |
solution chosen can break an already functioning and stable system. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This is not unlike the kerfufle that occurred when systemD was introduced |
| 13 |
not so long ago. To use it folks had to make major changes to their systems |
| 14 |
that took several months to iron out the kinks. Additionally, some of the |
| 15 |
folks |
| 16 |
pusing the change seemed to have a bad attitude about not caring that what |
| 17 |
they did had unintended consequences. (Enough so that Linus had some bad |
| 18 |
words for them!) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It isn't that progress or systemD is "bad", (it did solve some problems) but |
| 21 |
that the manner in which it was introduced and pushed was poorly handled. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
To select a "solution" that breaks functioning systems is not (to me) an |
| 24 |
acceptable course of action. It is no justification to remove udev-settle |
| 25 |
to say that it "will speed thing up" as the only real advantage. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL=<name> is not |
| 28 |
good? I realize that <name>s are not required when doing a mkfs, but if the |
| 29 |
admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, why should it be |
| 30 |
"deprecated"? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |
| 35 |
redwolfe@×××××.com |
Archives