On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
> Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Ohey,
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
>> For existing installs this has zero impact.
>> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of udev.
>> The rationale behind this is:
>> * eudev is an in-house fork, and there's more than a dozen distros
>> already using it by default that are not us. Which is a little bit weird ...
> That's not an argument. I can also fork random system components. Would
> you consider that a reason to replace the defaults with our 'in-house'
> forks?
>> * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be
>> any user-visible changes
>> * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd)
>> since at least 2012
>> (see for example:
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-June/005516.html
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/618
>> )
>> So it'd be (1) following upstreams recommendations and (2) dogfooding
>> our own tools. I don't see any downsides to this :)
> I'm strongly against this, because:
> 1. It is a conflict-induced fork. As such, it will never be merged
> upstream and it will never be supported upstream. In fact, it is
> continually forces to follow upstream changes and adapt to them. eudev
> is more likely to break because of the Gentoo developer(s) working hard
> to merge upstream changes to their incompatible code.

That was the entire point of the project. Upstream rejected any attempts
to do things that we actually needed and broke things claiming the
distributions were responsible for handling the breakage, so eudev was
started on the basis that we needed a project that would ensure that
changes in udev occur in a way that makes sense.

> 2. Many of Gentoo users are programmers who appreciate the 'vanilla'
> API experience Gentoo often provides. Switching the defaults to a fork
> that is known to intentionally diverge from upstream goes against that
> principle. Programs written against eudev may not work correctly with
> upstream udev.

If upstream udev were stable, that would be one thing, but it
intentionally diverges from itself continuously. The only experience
that could be reliably provided with upstream udev is one of continual

> 3. eudev has fallen behind systemd/udev more than once in the past,
> and caused visible breakage to users this way.


Can we also consider all of the times udev broke the boot process
because upstream just didn't care about doing changes in a sane way and
the people interested in providing the upstream experience delivered on
that goal?

> 4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks
> at documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev
> diverges from upstream udev to this point?

The FreeBSD developers were complaining about how poorly documented udev
was well before eudev existed. This is not a regression unless systemd's
innovations in replacing documented things with undocumented things made
them worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to