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