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

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
> On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> I second this statement!
>> The monolithic nature of the systemd maintainer is something that
>> should be banned (dependency, which requires dependency recursively
>> until you end up with no choice and medium quality components).
>> There was no reason to merge the code base of udev to any other code base.
>> There was no reason to kill backward compatibility.
>
>
> FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be
> built standalone and ran standalone.
> And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove support
> for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both sys-apps/systemd and
> sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without issues.
>

No FUD... it can be currently with some patches, this is against
agenda of upstream... but you are right it *CAN* be done... with
effort and modifications.

In future, even that "support" may be removed because of upstream agenda.

I appreciate the effort of creating standalone udev project, I do not
care if this is udev fork or mdev or anything else that provide
userspace device management, that is free of commercial agenda and the
dependency lock-in.

As long as there is alternative to systemd upstream I will endorse it
and use it to help the relevant upstream to improve his software.

Regards,
Alon