-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, 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 > [email protected] 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 > >
* you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you point out. That has been discussed numerous of times. * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not for me since almost the beginning * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete at some point, then it has been a success * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive and causes confusion. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSCMjkAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz4/cH/1k5tyYetIZp0t+5BE2ytCFS 0FldL3IxIbOe16rfNP9LH5yqe/RnhabUbeja//rqhmMTeDGEEGbM/YgY6Tqo4q6Y usUQueYpwsVFAL9AL93+CLyQMC3cS6F1EFBeP98vcvErqHFPu9N/k2CXCQTWVlbe Vnbb+X9m2enso1rvSm/MBjtykJRzLw+Mq6gdVS9Pthb+UU78dX109z1Xtt9pSrUB Fa/NLvmQELu5QOb3+m6XXas8SoXUgjvKZ3xGgRjVmeCITBpjfsIf4KdvW0gqzOdE XjuIlNMPpLMZiWDV8yYMq2OVzRDwm8jTvSG/S4j45rHmBvTZj6km8979HAihtaQ= =Gnsu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
