| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > All, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new |
| 6 |
> > systems from eudev to udev. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since |
| 9 |
> > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at |
| 10 |
> > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked, |
| 11 |
> > this applies to non-glibc configurations). |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > What do people think? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Thanks, |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > William |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, why not? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
bitrot and bus factor. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> It works fine for new installs, having just done one myself. Seems like we |
| 26 |
> aught to keep it that way. I count six open bugs against eudev right now, |
| 27 |
> and none of them look to be critical, so I vote "no" on your proposal unless |
| 28 |
> there is some verifiable reason why eudev is no longer suitable to be the |
| 29 |
> default udev provider. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
The thing is, udev was never unsuitable. AS I said the original change |
| 32 |
was not because of the lack of suitability, but because of fear of what |
| 33 |
the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Not that it matters much, but I'll go there since you did, I count 26 |
| 36 |
open issues against eudev and some of them have been open since 2012. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
William |
Archives