Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone switched to eudev yet?

[Dale]

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


That's all true, hence my question.  I'm not sure I want to use the very
first version so I thought it worth asking first.  Since it is a fork,
one could think it would be safe enough but then again, it is the very
first one.  It is stable according to that but is it really? 

That is why I asked.  It seems no one has used it yet tho since no one
has fessed up to installing it, other than testers and such I guess.  ;-)

Guess I'll wait a bit and see what else changes.  Current udev is
working for the moment at least.  I do plan to abandon udev as soon as I
think it is safe tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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