| 1 |
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default |
| 10 |
>>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names |
| 11 |
>>>> work as designed, not a single valid bug filed about them. |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> Stop spreading FUD. |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like |
| 16 |
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary |
| 17 |
>>>> later on. |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev? Maybe it is you that is |
| 20 |
>>> spreading FUD instead of others. Like others have said, udev was |
| 21 |
>>> going to cause issues, eudev has yet to cause any. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it |
| 24 |
>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from |
| 25 |
>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. And no, |
| 26 |
>> sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what |
| 27 |
>> sys-fs/eudev has. Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to |
| 28 |
>> udev-bugs@g.o apply also to sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in |
| 29 |
>> their github ticketing system. And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to |
| 30 |
>> constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so it doesn't fall too much behind, |
| 31 |
>> which adds double work unnecessarily. They don't keep it up-to-date |
| 32 |
>> on their own without prodding. |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double |
| 35 |
>> work and user confusion needs to stop. |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> - Samuli |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> * you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the |
| 42 |
> fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the |
| 45 |
Gentoo udev team despite being invited to. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were |
| 48 |
> merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you |
| 49 |
> point out. That has been discussed numerous of times. |
| 50 |
> * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus |
| 53 |
restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes |
| 54 |
creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for |
| 55 |
uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct |
| 58 |
> * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not |
| 59 |
> for me since almost the beginning |
| 60 |
> * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it |
| 61 |
> agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete |
| 62 |
> at some point, then it has been a success |
| 63 |
> * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different |
| 64 |
> mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision |
| 65 |
> about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that |
| 66 |
> people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason |
| 67 |
> to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive |
| 68 |
> and causes confusion. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's |
| 71 |
how maintainership works. |
| 72 |
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is |
| 73 |
annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
- Samuli |
Archives