15.09.2023 16:10, orbea пишет:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 01:19:22 +0200
Arsen Arsenović <ar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
"Eddie Chapman" <ed...@ehuk.net> writes:
Not aiming this at you personally but this argument has been made
more than once in this thread and I personally don't think it
carries any weight, because it can be levelled at anyone who raises
an issue about anything. If you don't like it, then just go and
roll your own.
::gentoo is supposed to be a coherent set of packages provided by
Gentoo developers, with a reasonable scope. eudev no longer fits
into the 'coherent' part of that definition, and there are zero
advantages to it over systemd-utils[udev].
The _only_ difference between a sys-fs/eudev::eudev and
sys-fs/eudev::gentoo package that would exist if the former were to be
made into an overlay is that Gentoo developers would be responsible
for the latter. There are no Gentoo developers interested in being
responsible for the latter (AFAIK), and there is no tangible benefit
to the latter for any Gentoo developer to latch onto.
Seeing as there is at least half a dozen people seemingly interested
in maintaining eudev, why not just form an overlay? This way,
virtual/{,lib}udev doesn't get polluted with implementations which
don't fullfil the definition of a virtual provider in ::gentoo, nor
with use-flag hacks, but users which wish to use eudev still have
access to it, and upstream eudev gets half a dozen potential
contributors, which are needed, _badly_. At risk of repeating
myself, I'd like to point out again that the only viable approach for
eudev upstream to take is to re-fork systemd and find a viable way to
stay up-to-date, while fixing up incompatibilities with musl. I've
made proposals a few years ago and restated them in this thread.
What incompatibilities with musl? I am using musl-1.2.4 with eudev and
there do not seem to be any issues in that regard.
I also don't see any musl specific issues reported upstream or for
Gentoo. Am I missing something?
Arsen meant incompatibilities of systemd-udev, not of eudev [1]. No idea
what's the current state of udev upstream is though. Alpine uses musl,
that's one of reasons why they are interested in eudev.
[1] See
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/eudev.git/commit/?id=f559dc96f4105f605272defac9276ef9cb6f5dc6
Of course I know I (and anyone else) can do that. So then what's the
point of discussing anything then?
Just because an argument is widely applicable does not make it
invalid.
Note that this argument is seldom the first resort, since, as you
note, it's not overly productive. Indeed, it was not the first
resort here. sys-fs/eudev has long overstayed the original removal
plan.
What's the point of having a big tree with hundreds of packages? Why
not have a very minimal tree instead and let everyone go and run
multiple independent repos so we can all do what we want? Then we
wouldn't have any discussion about what to include and what not. In
fact maybe that's not a bad idea.
I'm not sure how to fit this within the context of the thread.
Have a lovely evening.
--
Best regards,
Alexey "DarthGandalf" Sokolov
