Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 02:08:38
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=kzwwt7m_X0EVXW+FtLDCg3aTtkHMak3c1tq32zsrGnQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev by Joshua Kinard
1 On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 9:55 PM Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote:
4 > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
5 > >>
6 > >> If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix?
7 > >
8 > > bitrot and bus factor.
9 >
10 > Examples?
11
12 The sole maintainer of eudev is going to suddenly disappear before
13 getting a chance to tell anybody about the horrible security issue
14 they discovered earlier that day.
15
16 > You meant to say "has yet to come true".
17 >....
18 > Elsewise, as long as that door remains open, then future tense is
19 > the correct tense.
20
21 Note that the disappearance of the sole maintainer of eudev has yet to
22 happen, but we absolutely need to be taking steps today because
23 everybody knows it will happen. After all, it COULD happen, and so as
24 long as that door remains open the future tense is the correct tense.
25 :)
26
27 I find it amusing that everybody is still trembling in fear that
28 Lennart is going to take their shell scripts away from them in the
29 middle of the night. But it isn't like anybody needs to touch that
30 cruft if they don't want to just because they're working on Gentoo, so
31 whatever rocks your boat.
32
33 Really though I'd just stick with "ain't broke don't fix it" as there
34 really is no reason to get into paranoid FUD.
35
36 --
37 Rich

Replies