Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev

[orbea <orbea@riseup.net>]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 19:38:27 +0100
Alexey Sokolov <alexey+gentoo@asokolov.org> wrote:

> 15.09.2023 16:10, orbea пишет:
> > On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 01:19:22 +0200
> > Arsen Arsenović <arsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> >> "Eddie Chapman" <eddie@ehuk.net> writes:
> >>  
> >>> 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.  
> >>
> >> ::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].
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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?  
> 
> Arsen meant incompatibilities of systemd-udev, not of eudev [1]. No
> idea what's the current state of udev upstream is though. Alpine uses
> musl, that's one of reasons why they are interested in eudev.

Oh, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding. After re-reading I don't
know if eudev needs to be reforked, missing functionality that
downstreams are using can be added and otherwise focus on cleaning up
and improving the code independently of systemd. For instance there is
no reason that LibreSSL should refork OpenSSL.

> 
> [1] See 
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/eudev.git/commit/?id=f559dc96f4105f605272defac9276ef9cb6f5dc6
> 
> >   
> >>  
> >>> Of course I know I (and anyone else) can do that. So then what's
> >>> the point of discussing anything then?  
> >>
> >> Just because an argument is widely applicable does not make it
> >> invalid.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>  
> >>> 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.  
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how to fit this within the context of the thread.
> >>
> >> Have a lovely evening.  
> > 
> >   
>