On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 13:52 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-08-09 23:14, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Here is something else to consider.
> > 
> > Blueness and any of the other eudev maintainers are doing good work
> > for alternative c library support such as musl. In fact, the musl
> > profiles hard mask sys-fs/udev, so they are covered no matter what
> > happens as a result of this thread.
> > 
> > Eudev is supposed to be udev without systemd along with alternative c
> > library support, but it appears to be behind what eudev offers.
> > 
> > The following commit appears to be the last time eudev synced with udev:
> > 
> > https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commit/2ab887ec67afd15eb9b0849467f1f9c036a2b6c8
> > 
> > There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date of 
> > this
> > sync:
> > 
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev
> > 
> > There are several new commits in libudev and udev rules since then as
> > well:
> > 
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/libudev
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/rules.d
> > 
> > I would like to publically thank Leio for providing me with the
> > information above.
> > 
> > I asked the council for guidance and was told that they don't need to be
> > involved, so I guess the best thing to do now is call for testers.
> > 
> > It would be helpful if people migrate their systems manually from eudev to 
> > udev
> > and report issues.
> > 
> > I'm not a valid test case because I have always run udev.
> 
> This is not answering my questions.
> 
> If anything from above would be valid (like others have asked you for
> bugs and already mentioned that commit count alone don't say anything)
> we wouldn't just be talking about switching default for *new*
> installations. Instead we would need to talk about ditching eudev in
> general...
> 
> So for me it still looks like change for change's sake without a real
> reason.
> 

...or a revert of a change made for change's sake.  In the end, it all
boils down to preference of a single person, and potential of another
person reverting it.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to