| 1 |
On 02/08/13 08:28, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in |
| 9 |
>>>>>> sys-fs/udev |
| 10 |
>>>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, |
| 11 |
>>>>>> not a |
| 12 |
>>>>>> single valid bug filed about them. |
| 13 |
>>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>>> Stop spreading FUD. |
| 15 |
>>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like |
| 17 |
>>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary |
| 18 |
>>>>>> later on. |
| 19 |
>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev? Maybe it is you that is |
| 21 |
>>>>> spreading |
| 22 |
>>>>> FUD instead of others. Like others have said, udev was going to cause |
| 23 |
>>>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any. |
| 24 |
>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it |
| 26 |
>>>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from |
| 27 |
>>>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. |
| 28 |
>>>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what |
| 29 |
>>>> sys-fs/eudev has. |
| 30 |
>>>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to |
| 31 |
>>>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system. |
| 32 |
>>>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so |
| 33 |
>>>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily. |
| 34 |
>>>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding. |
| 35 |
>>>> |
| 36 |
>>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double |
| 37 |
>>>> work and user confusion needs to stop. |
| 38 |
>>>> |
| 39 |
>>>> - Samuli |
| 40 |
>>>> |
| 41 |
>>>> |
| 42 |
>>> |
| 43 |
>>> So any bug that udev has eudev has too? |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> Yes, because eudev is copying the upstream code over from udev. |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>>> Then with that logic, udev is just as unstable as eudev. |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional |
| 50 |
>> changes on top of udev changes. |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
>>> You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't, |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
>> Which is true. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> Let's see them. I'll help you: |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=eudev&list_id=1920856 |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Help yourself instead and use correct search parameters, like below... |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
>> |
| 63 |
>>> let's see them. Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them. |
| 64 |
>>> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho. |
| 65 |
>> |
| 66 |
>> I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between |
| 67 |
>> udev vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is |
| 68 |
>> IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and |
| 69 |
>> 70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted. |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> So still no links to any bug reports that are eudev specific huh? See |
| 72 |
> above. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Search bugzilla for udev-bugs@g.o and 90% of them apply also to |
| 75 |
eudev. |
| 76 |
Search bugzilla for eudev@g.o and those all apply. |
| 77 |
Search eudev github page Tickets and those all apply. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
>> |
| 80 |
>>> Here is the deal OK. Udev went in a direction I do NOT like. |
| 81 |
>> |
| 82 |
>> What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in |
| 83 |
>> sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator. |
| 84 |
>> |
| 85 |
>>> I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it. I PREFER eudev whether |
| 86 |
>>> you like |
| 87 |
>>> that decision or not. I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my |
| 88 |
>>> needs as I suspect others will as well. You can preach FUD all you want |
| 89 |
>>> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for |
| 90 |
>>> them. The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to |
| 91 |
>>> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to |
| 92 |
>>> use it. |
| 93 |
>> |
| 94 |
>> I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of |
| 95 |
>> ignorance. |
| 96 |
>> |
| 97 |
>> - Samuli |
| 98 |
>> |
| 99 |
>> |
| 100 |
> |
| 101 |
> |
| 102 |
> Here is some FUD for you. Eudev just left beta. From the eudev changelog. |
| 103 |
> |
| 104 |
> *eudev-1.2 (01 Aug 2013) |
| 105 |
> |
| 106 |
> 01 Aug 2013; Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> +eudev-1.2.ebuild, |
| 107 |
> -eudev-1.2_beta.ebuild: |
| 108 |
> version bump, remove beta |
| 109 |
|
| 110 |
And how did they get there? |
| 111 |
By udev maintainers forcing them to upgrade to the new keymap hwdb which |
| 112 |
required version to be raised to up-to-par with udev-206. |
| 113 |
|
| 114 |
Anyway, have fun with pointless udev fork which will never be the |
| 115 |
default. I don't care if you don't want the system up-to-par with |
| 116 |
production level system. :-) |
| 117 |
|
| 118 |
- Samuli |
Archives