| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from |
| 4 |
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly. |
| 5 |
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road |
| 8 |
> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact |
| 11 |
any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason |
| 12 |
to base the decision on. IMO it was paranoid years ago when people |
| 13 |
first brought it up. Now it is even moreso considering that years |
| 14 |
have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed. If |
| 15 |
their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to |
| 16 |
mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use |
| 17 |
(e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least |
| 18 |
they would still be talking about it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things? |
| 21 |
Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and |
| 22 |
generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they |
| 23 |
intentionally don't want to accept)? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the |
| 26 |
two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of |
| 27 |
were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default |
| 28 |
persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not |
| 29 |
made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other |
| 30 |
differences. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives