On 02/17/2016 09:54 AM, brettrse...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Kohler <bkoh...@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:01:32 
> To: <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
> Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on
>> Gentoo. systemd-udev does not. Consequently, eudev has avoided the system
>> boot breaking regressions that prompted its creation. That is a good reason
>> to make it the new default. If it fails to fulfill its duties, then this
>> could be revisited, but that should be unlikely.
>> I think if someone could enumerate those specific breakages and present it
> as evidence, that could get more people on board for this change.  Moreso
> than just "upstream doesn't care about us" or "eventually split udev will
> be impossible".
> -Ben

This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by
sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was

If a complete list of the breakages that lead to the creation of
sys-fs/eudev were produced, I imagine that the list would have at least
3 to 5 items from the ~18 months before sys-fs/eudev with half of them
were probably self inflicted by sys-fs/udev maintenance.

I recall one incident involving whether udev should be in /sbin or
/usr/sbin being resolved after 6 months of debate between then future
eudev founders and sys-fs/udev maintainers only because the systemd
developers told the sys-fs/udev maintainers it should be in /sbin like
others had told them.

Another broke support for older kernels for no apparent benefit (and
this sort of regression naturally enters sys-fs/udev):


There were other issues too, but I am unable to volunteer the time
required to go through history to figure out what was broken, when and
for how long.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to