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

[hasufell]

On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> * you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the
>> fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem
>
> True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the
> Gentoo udev team despite being invited to.

That's a bit unrelated. It wasn't just about the gentoo ebuild.

>
>> to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were
>> merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you
>> point out. That has been discussed numerous of times.
>> * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven
>
> I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus
> restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes
> creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for
> uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs.
>

Wonder why udev upstream merged back changes if it was all that bad.

>> * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct
>> * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not
>> for me since almost the beginning
>> * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it
>> agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete
>> at some point, then it has been a success
>> * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different
>> mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision
>> about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that
>> people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason
>> to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive
>> and causes confusion.
>
> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
> how maintainership works.
> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>

Who lied?