| 1 |
On 02/08/2016 04:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ohey, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I've opened a bug at: |
| 5 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. |
| 8 |
> For existing installs this has zero impact. |
| 9 |
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The rationale behind this is: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> * eudev is an in-house fork, and there's more than a dozen distros |
| 14 |
> already using it by default that are not us. Which is a little bit weird ... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be |
| 17 |
> any user-visible changes |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd) |
| 20 |
> since at least 2012 |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> (see for example: |
| 23 |
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-June/005516.html |
| 24 |
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/618 |
| 25 |
> ) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> So it'd be (1) following upstreams recommendations and (2) dogfooding |
| 28 |
> our own tools. I don't see any downsides to this :) |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
+1 |
Archives