| 1 |
On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in |
| 8 |
>>>>> sys-fs/udev |
| 9 |
>>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a |
| 10 |
>>>>> single valid bug filed about them. |
| 11 |
>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>> Stop spreading FUD. |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like |
| 15 |
>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on. |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev? Maybe it is you that is spreading |
| 18 |
>>>> FUD instead of others. Like others have said, udev was going to cause |
| 19 |
>>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any. |
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't |
| 22 |
>>> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version |
| 23 |
>>> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. |
| 24 |
>>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what |
| 25 |
>>> sys-fs/eudev has. |
| 26 |
>>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to |
| 27 |
>>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system. |
| 28 |
>>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so |
| 29 |
>>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily. |
| 30 |
>>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding. |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work |
| 33 |
>>> and user confusion needs to stop. |
| 34 |
>>> |
| 35 |
>>> - Samuli |
| 36 |
>>> |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what |
| 39 |
>> about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky, |
| 40 |
>> unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even |
| 41 |
>> though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to? A |
| 42 |
>> group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly |
| 43 |
>> without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ... |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> BillK |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> I second this statement! |
| 49 |
> The monolithic nature of the systemd maintainer is something that |
| 50 |
> should be banned (dependency, which requires dependency recursively |
| 51 |
> until you end up with no choice and medium quality components). |
| 52 |
> There was no reason to merge the code base of udev to any other code base. |
| 53 |
> There was no reason to kill backward compatibility. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be |
| 56 |
built standalone and ran standalone. |
| 57 |
And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove |
| 58 |
support for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both |
| 59 |
sys-apps/systemd and sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without issues. |
Archives