1 |
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 21:55 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
2 |
> On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: |
3 |
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
4 |
> > > On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: |
5 |
> > > > All, |
6 |
> > > > |
7 |
> > > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new |
8 |
> > > > systems from eudev to udev. |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since |
11 |
> > > > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at |
12 |
> > > > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked, |
13 |
> > > > this applies to non-glibc configurations). |
14 |
> > > > |
15 |
> > > > What do people think? |
16 |
> > > > |
17 |
> > > > Thanks, |
18 |
> > > > |
19 |
> > > > William |
20 |
> > > |
21 |
> > > Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, why not? |
22 |
> > > |
23 |
> > > If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > bitrot and bus factor. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Examples? |
28 |
|
29 |
I suppose nobody remembers the time (the previous year) where eudev |
30 |
broke reverse dependencies because of wrong version number, and it took |
31 |
around 3 months to get a fix (read: changing the version number) into |
32 |
~arch. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Best regards, |
36 |
Michał Górny |