Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote:
>
> what does in-house tool mean?  i'm a gentoo developer but i also work
> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use.
>
> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've
> spoken with the various distros --- slack, parted magic, puppy.  they
> get what's going on and they still see eudev is the best way forward
> for now.  it may not be in the future, but neither will a udev
> extracted from a compiled full systemd codebase.

How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users?

Look, I get it, some people don't like systemd.  That's fine.
However, you have to realize at this point that a non-systemd
configuration is anything but mainstream.  There will always be a
"poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux
without sysfs or some other obscure practice.  I just think that
Gentoo should offer the choice to do those things, but have a more
mainstream set of defaults.

>
> it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system.  imo a
> stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel.
>

Sure, a stage4 based on systemd makes a lot of sense.  I don't really
see the point in leaving a kernel out though - I'd even stick a
precompiled one in /boot on top of having the sources installed.  Why
not make a stage4 install something that takes all of 5 minutes?

I think that offering an eudev-based distro as a default just doesn't
make sense in 2016.  I just think the better road to take is to start
treating virtual/udev as something that gets installed post-stage3.
We can't even get people to agree on vi vs emacs as a default.

When these sorts of debates come up it seems like:
1.  People express their preference.
2.  People get offended when others express a different preference.
3.  People say "it's just a default" as if that is a reason that
others shouldn't object to their own preference.

-- 
Rich