| 1 |
On 2020.08.10 16:22, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > All, |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider |
| 7 |
> on new |
| 8 |
> > > systems from eudev to udev. |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems |
| 11 |
> since |
| 12 |
> > > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden |
| 13 |
> at |
| 14 |
> > > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I |
| 15 |
> checked, |
| 16 |
> > > this applies to non-glibc configurations). |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > What do people think? |
| 19 |
> > > |
| 20 |
> > > Thanks, |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > William |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, |
| 25 |
> why not? |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> bitrot and bus factor. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> > It works fine for new installs, having just done one myself. Seems |
| 32 |
> like we |
| 33 |
> > aught to keep it that way. I count six open bugs against eudev |
| 34 |
> right now, |
| 35 |
> > and none of them look to be critical, so I vote "no" on your |
| 36 |
> proposal unless |
| 37 |
> > there is some verifiable reason why eudev is no longer suitable to |
| 38 |
> be the |
| 39 |
> > default udev provider. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
[snip] |
| 42 |
> ...because of fear of |
| 43 |
> what |
| 44 |
> the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
[snip] |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> William |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
William, |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Never is a very long time. |
| 54 |
That promise has not been made good ... yet. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Regards, |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Roy Bamford |
| 60 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 61 |
elections |
| 62 |
gentoo-ops |
| 63 |
forum-mods |
| 64 |
arm64 |
Archives