Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 05:44:59
Message-Id: e263eedfab6fe9e9286bf79b6031b9ccd3d091e6.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev by Joshua Kinard
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies