1 |
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Mark Knecht wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> Howdy, |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> I noticed eudev has hit the tree. Has anyone used it yet? If so, any |
7 |
>>> issues? Did you just uninstall udev and install eudev in one step or |
8 |
>>> some other way? |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> I'm thinking of switching and getting rid of the init thingy but curious |
11 |
>>> as to what others may have ran into. |
12 |
>>> |
13 |
>>> Thanks much. |
14 |
>>> |
15 |
>>> Dale |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>> Even if someone has, and clearly _someone_ out there has or it likely |
18 |
>> wouldn't even be visible yet, but even if 10 or 20 people have, and |
19 |
>> even if all of their results are fine because they are high skill set |
20 |
>> folks, why would that change how you are running your machines? |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> I suspect this is about your (and my) dislike for dealing with initrd |
23 |
>> on a box at home. Gentoo doesn't make it at all easy so we're in that |
24 |
>> together. However so what if someone has used it? Let it get used for |
25 |
>> 6 months. Let it go stable. Why bother with a piece of software that |
26 |
>> won't really improve your life now that you do have your 'init |
27 |
>> thingy'? |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>> Just my view, |
30 |
>> Mark |
31 |
|
32 |
> Well, it appears that one version is stable: |
33 |
> |
34 |
> root@fireball / # equery list -p eudev |
35 |
> * Searching for eudev ... |
36 |
> [-P-] [ ] sys-fs/eudev-0:0 |
37 |
> [-P-] [ ~] sys-fs/eudev-1_beta1-r1:0 |
38 |
> [-P-] [ -] sys-fs/eudev-9999:0 |
39 |
> root@fireball / # |
40 |
> |
41 |
> The first one is not keyworded or masked. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> You are right, I don't like the init fix because when I used Mandrake, |
44 |
> it caused me all sorts of problems. That and the upgrade process for |
45 |
> Mandrake is the reason I switched to Gentoo. If eudev is ready, then so |
46 |
> am I. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Dale |
49 |
|
50 |
Well, OK, so if you want to call version 0.0 stable then I guess that |
51 |
meets the rules of portage anyway. However version '0.0' doesn't sound |
52 |
like anything that's seen the light of day, been used by lots of |
53 |
people and proven robust and stable. At least to me it sounds like a |
54 |
place holder... |
55 |
|
56 |
This is just my view, but it goes something like this: |
57 |
|
58 |
1) Unless someone tells me why a really new package helps me then I go |
59 |
slow, most especially if it could have a large impact like a new |
60 |
version of udev might. |
61 |
|
62 |
2) Somewhere in the install guide, or elsewhere, I don't remember, it |
63 |
says something like 'don't expect ~packages to work correctly. We do |
64 |
what we can to check them but you should expect things to break'. And |
65 |
then most importantly, again from memory and paraphrased 'If you don't |
66 |
know how to fix things when they do break don't use ~packages'. I let |
67 |
these few sentences guide a lot of my Gentoo maintenance here at home. |
68 |
I mask packages (good info from Bruce about which to mask) and wait |
69 |
for the heavy lifters to shake things out a bit before I update things |
70 |
that might take more than 5 minutes to fix. |
71 |
|
72 |
Again, all my systems are stable with ~amd64 only when required to get |
73 |
an app, but that's just me. |
74 |
|
75 |
Good luck with whatever path you take. |
76 |
|
77 |
Cheers, |
78 |
Mark |