| 1 |
On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> All, |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new |
| 7 |
>>> systems from eudev to udev. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since |
| 10 |
>>> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at |
| 11 |
>>> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked, |
| 12 |
>>> this applies to non-glibc configurations). |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> What do people think? |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> Thanks, |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>>> William |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, why not? |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> bitrot and bus factor. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Examples? I don't necessarily stay abreast of what new gizmos upstream udev |
| 27 |
may or may not be adding that eudev may or may not be missing. Is there |
| 28 |
something critical that you have observed going into upstream udev that |
| 29 |
eudev is missing that would be super-awesome or which otherwise improves the |
| 30 |
lives of aspiring Gentoo users everywhere? Or is it related to unpatched |
| 31 |
security issues, perhaps? Is there a list of unmitigated CVE's that |
| 32 |
upstream udev has patched that the eudev team has not? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Have you tried reaching out to the eudev developer(s) to see if they're |
| 35 |
responsive and to maybe raise your concerns about aforementioned "bitrot"? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>> It works fine for new installs, having just done one myself. Seems like we |
| 39 |
>> aught to keep it that way. I count six open bugs against eudev right now, |
| 40 |
>> and none of them look to be critical, so I vote "no" on your proposal unless |
| 41 |
>> there is some verifiable reason why eudev is no longer suitable to be the |
| 42 |
>> default udev provider. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> The thing is, udev was never unsuitable. AS I said the original change |
| 45 |
> was not because of the lack of suitability, but because of fear of what |
| 46 |
> the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
You meant to say "has yet to come true". Show me something from the |
| 49 |
upstream udev developers where they permanently close the door to making |
| 50 |
udev a symbiotic element to systemd and then I'll accept your use of past |
| 51 |
tense. Elsewise, as long as that door remains open, then future tense is |
| 52 |
the correct tense. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Not that it matters much, but I'll go there since you did, I count 26 |
| 56 |
> open issues against eudev and some of them have been open since 2012. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
My search was based on the string "sys-fs/eudev", which is the standard |
| 59 |
nomenclature for naming bugs. If there are other bugs open for eudev that |
| 60 |
are missing that, then they need their titles updated. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Joshua Kinard |
| 64 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
| 65 |
kumba@g.o |
| 66 |
rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 |
| 67 |
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
| 70 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |
Archives