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 B2DD4158089 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:35:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27A822BC050; Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5C5C2BC018 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2023 09:35:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: sys-fs/eudev From: David Seifert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 11:35:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20230915154041.45777bf8@Akita> 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> <20230915154041.45777bf8@Akita> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.48.4 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 X-Archives-Salt: ad003664-ca7d-432a-868b-32bd94fde443 X-Archives-Hash: d501a2bcfb91853b352c8a917b212916 On Fri, 2023-09-15 at 15:40 -0700, orbea wrote: > On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 01:19:22 +0200 > Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 wrote: >=20 > > "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.=C2=A0=20 > >=20 > > ::gentoo is supposed to be a coherent set of packages provided by > > Gentoo developers, with a reasonable scope.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 There are no Gentoo developers interested in bein= g > > 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?=C2=A0 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_.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 I'v= e > > made proposals a few years ago and restated them in this thread. >=20 > I just want to reiterate that the overlay suggestion is bad and the > LibreSSL overlay is a good example of why. The result is most of the > work is redoing things that ::gentoio has already done by copying > ebuild changes where actual changes for LibreSSL itself or for > packages > not compatible with it is a vast minority of the work. >=20 Many people told you that ::libressl is a waste of time, and you've proven to us that it is.