| 1 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:33:55 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by |
| 5 |
> systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they |
| 6 |
> made around here. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So, yes, we should definitely switch to semi-maintained, |
| 9 |
> semi-documented fork made plainly of systemd hate. Because certainly |
| 10 |
> project that is created plainly for political reasons is better. |
| 11 |
> Because it will certainly be technically better if people have to |
| 12 |
> focus on copying regular udev maintainers and reworking their changes |
| 13 |
> to keep them working on forked codebase. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And after all, as someone said, this will give eudev proper testing. |
| 16 |
> Because why default to something tested and working when you can throw |
| 17 |
> your random fork on our users. After all, if we force them to use it, |
| 18 |
> they will eventually start co-maintaining it, and it will no longer be |
| 19 |
> semi-maintained! |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
keep cool; eudev has its merits, I'm just trying to figure out what is |
| 22 |
a real one and what is a pure guess on the future. For me, the main |
| 23 |
advantage for eudev is the loose coupling with the kernel, which we |
| 24 |
have no way to control/force in gentoo, and in some worlds (embedded) |
| 25 |
it is often, unfortunately, not even an option to use a recent kernel. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Alexis. |
Archives