On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
single valid bug filed about them.
Stop spreading FUD.
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
So your real agenda is to kill eudev? Maybe it is you that is spreading
FUD instead of others. Like others have said, udev was going to cause
issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
sys-fs/eudev has.
Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
work and user confusion needs to stop.
- Samuli
So any bug that udev has eudev has too?
Yes, because eudev is copying the upstream code over from udev.
Then with that logic, udev is just as unstable as eudev.
Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional
changes on top of udev changes.
You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,
Which is true.
let's see them. Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.
I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between udev
vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is
IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and
70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted.
Here is the deal OK. Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.
What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in
sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator.
I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it. I PREFER eudev whether you like
that decision or not. I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
needs as I suspect others will as well. You can preach FUD all you want
but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
them. The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
use it.
I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of
ignorance.
- Samuli
