On 12/08/13 16:39, hasufell wrote:
On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
-----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
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
* 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
True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the
Gentoo udev team despite being invited to.
That's a bit unrelated. It wasn't just about the gentoo ebuild.
That's all it was.
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
I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus
restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes
creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for
uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs.
Wonder why udev upstream merged back changes if it was all that bad.
Merged back what changes? That'd be news to me. I think you might be
confusing something.
* 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.
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
Who lied?
Let's rephrase lying with FUD for correctness.
