1 |
On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 |
2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Ohey, |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I've opened a bug at: |
7 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 |
8 |
> |
9 |
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. |
10 |
> For existing installs this has zero impact. |
11 |
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The rationale behind this is: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> * eudev is an in-house fork, and there's more than a dozen distros |
16 |
> already using it by default that are not us. Which is a little bit |
17 |
> weird ... |
18 |
|
19 |
IMHO the in-house fork thing is rather an argument to keep udev :) |
20 |
the # of other distros using it is a rather motivating argument |
21 |
and proves it is not in-house anymore though |
22 |
|
23 |
> * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't |
24 |
> be any user-visible changes |
25 |
|
26 |
This is only a necessary condition. |
27 |
|
28 |
> * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd) |
29 |
> since at least 2012 |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
Here I think it'd be nice to have feedbacks from udev maintainers: |
33 |
How much of a mess is it to support standalone udev? If maintaining |
34 |
standalone udev means patching like mad, or having to build the |
35 |
whole systemd just to dosbin udevd, then it is much less clean than a |
36 |
proper fork and a good argument for eudev. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
I'm still using udev because this is the kind of things I don't like |
40 |
to change everyday and I initially didn't believe much in eudev's |
41 |
sustainability. I've been proven wrong for the latter. IIRC one of eudev |
42 |
goals was to be more portable and, e.g., not force very recent kernel |
43 |
versions to be able to boot, which suits better Gentoo since kernel & |
44 |
userland are decoupled. That'd be a +0.5 for eudev being default from |
45 |
me. |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
Alexis. |