Em 07-06-2014 11:12, Pierre Labastie escreveu: > Le 07/06/2014 14:48, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit : >> Just remembered you have difficulties with my messages from the lists, >> so forwarding privately. >> >> >> -------- Mensagem original -------- >> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] Udev vs Eudev page >> Data: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:34:17 -0300 >> De: Fernando de Oliveira <[email protected]> >> Responder a: BLFS Development List <[email protected]> >> Para: BLFS Development List <[email protected]> >> >> Em 07-06-2014 08:24, Pierre Labastie escreveu: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am wondering whether we should change the title of the Udev-extra page. >>> Now, >>> we use eudev, which has a different version scheme from udev, so there could >>> be a version number in the title (as for other packages). >>> Also, we now reinstall the whole package. >>> So the page layout could be much closer to the other book pages. >>> >>> For GCC (which adds "extras" as well), we just use GCC-<version>. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> >> My past experience about eudev is that the developers discouraged >> updating it in a system. That is the reason for it not having a version: >> you should install the same version as the one used when building LFS. >> The page often induces confusions, doubtes for the users. >> >> I asked Bruce to change eudev name for systemd, during the "hybrid" >> time, but he kept the same name udev. >> >> My particular point of view is that it should not be versioned, or would >> confuse even more the users. Changing to eudev, I would not mind, >> although most of the times that page is needed for providing "gudev", >> but Bruce might have a reason to keep it "udev extras". >> >> > (Thanks for your input, Fernando, and for posting privately. Posting to the > list again) > > Well, so I have a problem: > > (1) Let's say some user built LFS SVN just a few days ago with eudev 1.6, > which used udev version 212 > (2) Pierre Labastie overzealously updates BLFS "udev-extra" to use eudev-1.7, > which is based on udev version 213. > (3) The user went on to BLFS, and is now in need of gudev. So he or she > rebuilds udev 213 over 212, which the developers discourage.
Sorry, I did not notice that the page had been modified that way. It is not correct, now. > To avoid this, there should be no version at all in the "package information" > paragraph. And the page should be rewritten to explicitly specify to use > eudev-<your LFS version> (as it was when udev was separated from systemd). You are correct, page should be as in the old days. > Now, why do the developers discourage updating udev, really? I found this > link: > http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade > They warn about issues, they do not really discourage... I don't like very much to argue, but I replace "discourage" by "warn about issues". > > So eventually, I still think the page should be made versioned, maybe with a > note : "if you upgrade from a previous version of eudev, please have a look at > <above link>". Of course not. Correct thing to do is reverting to the old stile page, as you first suggested above. I did not want to update eudev (so I didn't take it earlier), exactly because of this problem. If you had not taken it, I was intending to ask exactly what could be done to update, as I did not want to build over previous one in my system. And the manpages are also a problem, as a recent post in other of our lists demonstrated. We do not need to install them, exactly because Bruce thought that it would not be a different version, in "extras". I believe he forgot all these issues, when editing from udev to eudev (as you once recalled me) to systemd to eudev again. OT: please, use cco with my email address, when posting to the list and privately in one go. :-) -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
