| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, 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 |
| 9 |
>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names |
| 10 |
>>> work as designed, not a 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 |
| 16 |
>>> later on. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev? Maybe it is you that is |
| 19 |
>> spreading FUD instead of others. Like others have said, udev was |
| 20 |
>> going to cause issues, eudev has yet to cause any. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it |
| 23 |
> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from |
| 24 |
> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. And no, |
| 25 |
> sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what |
| 26 |
> sys-fs/eudev has. Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to |
| 27 |
> udev-bugs@g.o apply also to sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in |
| 28 |
> their github ticketing system. And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to |
| 29 |
> constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so it doesn't fall too much behind, |
| 30 |
> which adds double work unnecessarily. They don't keep it up-to-date |
| 31 |
> on their own without prodding. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double |
| 34 |
> work and user confusion needs to stop. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> - Samuli |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
* you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the |
| 41 |
fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem |
| 42 |
to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were |
| 43 |
merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you |
| 44 |
point out. That has been discussed numerous of times. |
| 45 |
* claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven |
| 46 |
* that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct |
| 47 |
* that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not |
| 48 |
for me since almost the beginning |
| 49 |
* eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it |
| 50 |
agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete |
| 51 |
at some point, then it has been a success |
| 52 |
* I don't understand why you add those rants all over different |
| 53 |
mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision |
| 54 |
about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that |
| 55 |
people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason |
| 56 |
to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive |
| 57 |
and causes confusion. |
| 58 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 59 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) |
| 60 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSCMjkAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz4/cH/1k5tyYetIZp0t+5BE2ytCFS |
| 63 |
0FldL3IxIbOe16rfNP9LH5yqe/RnhabUbeja//rqhmMTeDGEEGbM/YgY6Tqo4q6Y |
| 64 |
usUQueYpwsVFAL9AL93+CLyQMC3cS6F1EFBeP98vcvErqHFPu9N/k2CXCQTWVlbe |
| 65 |
Vnbb+X9m2enso1rvSm/MBjtykJRzLw+Mq6gdVS9Pthb+UU78dX109z1Xtt9pSrUB |
| 66 |
Fa/NLvmQELu5QOb3+m6XXas8SoXUgjvKZ3xGgRjVmeCITBpjfsIf4KdvW0gqzOdE |
| 67 |
XjuIlNMPpLMZiWDV8yYMq2OVzRDwm8jTvSG/S4j45rHmBvTZj6km8979HAihtaQ= |
| 68 |
=Gnsu |
| 69 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives