1 |
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:22 AM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
4 |
> > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: |
5 |
> > > What do people think? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away |
10 |
> from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As |
11 |
> already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable |
12 |
> without systemd they would have by now. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> > What do you expect from this change? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community |
17 |
> uses for device management. |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
"I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community uses |
21 |
for init management." So we should make the systemd profile the default? :) |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
> > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by |
26 |
> > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use |
27 |
> sys-fs/udev? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It |
30 |
> was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages. |
31 |
> It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd |
32 |
> consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd. |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
You asked me on IRC "how do I convince people" and part of that is to make |
36 |
it easy to agree with your argument! Asking me to read a bunch of crap |
37 |
isn't going to make me want to agree; its going to make me say "your |
38 |
argument is poorly formed, please go away." |
39 |
|
40 |
- Link to the things you want me to read. |
41 |
- Summarize them so I don't have to read a 100 message long thread from 5 |
42 |
years ago. |
43 |
- Make an argument! |
44 |
|
45 |
--- |
46 |
"I think we picked eudev as the default because of a concern that udev |
47 |
would eventually require systemd for operation, you can see this from these |
48 |
mailing list posts: X, Y, Z." |
49 |
"The above concern has not manifested itself and I believe udev will |
50 |
continue to not strictly require systemd init for various reasons (mention |
51 |
list of cases here." |
52 |
"Therefore I think we should change the default udev provider from eudev to |
53 |
udev in the default profiles." |
54 |
--- |
55 |
|
56 |
This would be what I believe is a understandable argument (provided we had |
57 |
the links to the previous material.) I'm not saying I agree[0] with it; but |
58 |
I'd at least understand why you want the change to happen. |
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
> Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are |
62 |
> cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am |
63 |
> saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default |
64 |
> distro wide. |
65 |
|
66 |
William |
67 |
> |
68 |
> |
69 |
[0] I expect that most users who want udev actually also want systemd and |
70 |
so will simply select the systemd profile itself, and that this choice is |
71 |
immaterial to most users; so I am for keeping the status quo here. |