| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:51:41 -0500
|
| 5 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> All, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on |
| 10 |
> new systems from eudev to udev. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since |
| 13 |
> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at |
| 14 |
> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I |
| 15 |
> checked, this applies to non-glibc configurations). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What do people think? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No opinion on which to choose, I use the default one at the time I do
|
| 20 |
an install and have been happy with both.
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My main concern is that since the change won't be "live" until a
|
| 23 |
switched virtual reaches stable, eudev will still be much better tested
|
| 24 |
in our environment at this point, and people might uncover corner cases
|
| 25 |
when it's too late. Maybe a compromise could be to provide and
|
| 26 |
primarily advertise udev stages before making the switch ?
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Alexis.
|
| 29 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iHUEAREIAB0WIQSpOxaxaZikKNVNlsYOJUi7xgflrgUCXzFsKAAKCRAOJUi7xgfl
|
| 32 |
rkDGAP9no3aFUEIPFr3mPHp9lUmIk7ZUl+njCpQo0+GsgoFVuQD+OG2zf3SVSOPs
|
| 33 |
hrYNa/PYEHKujS/Rfk2m180it41yDwM=
|
| 34 |
=/0De
|
| 35 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives