Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[William Kenworthy]

On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>> sys-fs/udev
>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>
>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>
>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>
> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't
> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version
> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
> sys-fs/eudev has.
> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>
> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work
> and user confusion needs to stop.
>
> - Samuli
>

From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what
about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky,
unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even
though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to?  A
group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly
without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ...

BillK