From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66C7F158089 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:10:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8EA6D2BC037; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0.riseup.net (mx0.riseup.net [198.252.153.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 534982BC022 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:10:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fews02-sea.riseup.net (fews02-sea-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.112]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4RnHgJ2XCHz9tBF for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:10:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1694790620; bh=ODFMojladJqiKwzKIE7A53SR/Ay9Vw10dhcYZGRftWY=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mwmBIVnv9hrVlSwEyxRe/Bz0Q212O6ZnO5Fy4mBP7a3dM34CqxsudroKm7Vh/vgTi nqxe9qWoHfyWOYeRF9L7nchSeXGJM62r9fnFsP7hORLiu9fRP6G3Svl5WqDAdh84A5 1rTCIb7bhz2Fqn5EwzDnOyH9mRSg9KK/O/x4y9pQ= X-Riseup-User-ID: 77D9B6B9BB40F7C8B145E90DE0D17AE20D73122975E41D46E999A38EE22D8711 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews02-sea.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4RnHgJ0J6VzFq38 for ; Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:10:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:10:18 -0700 From: orbea To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev Message-ID: <20230915081018.7b231b78@Akita> In-Reply-To: <86ttrws520.fsf@gentoo.org> References: <7802203.lOV4Wx5bFT@kona> <92dfbb91650e4fe9c82268ccddf8b0ab.squirrel@ukinbox.ecrypt.net> <4270953.Sgy9Pd6rRy@pinacolada> <25616924cf66471fbd1075753551dffa.squirrel@ukinbox.ecrypt.net> <7B549F95-5EEA-4DD3-A046-AA6F2C7B6349@gentoo.org> <5aa46e8fd2c09e8d54c6a9ec71725529.squirrel@ukinbox.ecrypt.net> <6e35ba9b-a55b-4b36-9d79-96faa5fb1dc6@gentoo.org> <0daf33d92cd33094b88c0411a16a63ac.squirrel@ukinbox.ecrypt.net> <50d2d8a5796c8f71b58747d3f23593dd.squirrel@ukinbox.ecrypt.net> <86ttrws520.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d0ddc9e0-f7f2-4322-a049-6cb444a5418b X-Archives-Hash: 1ae720b4aece2adfe1760e54112b3462 On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 01:19:22 +0200 Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 wrote: > "Eddie Chapman" writes: >=20 > > 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. =20 >=20 > ::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]. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? >=20 > > Of course I know I (and anyone else) can do that. So then what's the > > point of discussing anything then? =20 >=20 > Just because an argument is widely applicable does not make it > invalid. >=20 > 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. >=20 > > 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. =20 >=20 > I'm not sure how to fit this within the context of the thread. >=20 > Have a lovely evening.