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

[Dale]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So any bug that udev has eudev has too?
>
> Yes, because eudev is copying the upstream code over from udev.
>
>> Then with that logic, udev is just as unstable as eudev.
>
> Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional
> changes on top of udev changes.
>
>> You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,
>
> Which is true.

Let's see them.   I'll help you:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=eudev&list_id=1920856


>
>> let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
>> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.
>
> I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between
> udev vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is
> IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and
> 70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted.

So still no links to any bug reports that are eudev specific huh?  See
above.


>
>> Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.
>
> What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in
> sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator.
>
>> I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether
>> you like
>> that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
>> needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you want
>> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
>> them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
>> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
>> use it.
>
> I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of
> ignorance.
>
> - Samuli
>
>


Here is some FUD for you.  Eudev just left beta.  From the eudev changelog.

*eudev-1.2 (01 Aug 2013)

  01 Aug 2013; Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> +eudev-1.2.ebuild,
  -eudev-1.2_beta.ebuild:
  version bump, remove beta


Just keep telling yourself this stuff and maybe one day you will
convince someone besides yourself.  In the meantime, others and myself
will continue to use eudev, whether you agree or not.  Keep the pity for
yourself OK.  I don't need it. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!