From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEDF58973 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:40:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E0B1F21C0A4; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB41E21C055 for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:40:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aTGwu-0004uh-15 for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:39:56 +0100 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:39:56 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:39:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 22:39:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <56B85B06.7020500@gentoo.org> <20160208134606.3a497035.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160209192652.GO7732@vapier.lan> 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 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT a52b404) X-Archives-Salt: 71e4c15c-dc30-40d7-9993-be7cdae50207 X-Archives-Hash: 9eabf2ba79d44501f12d07cf78411ee9 Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Michał Górny wrote: >> I'm strongly against this, because: > > agreed. i also don't see any reasons in Patrick's e-mail to suggest the > current default is inadequate. "i don't like upstream" isn't relevant. I'd agree, except that the way we're running udev is strongly discouraged and generally not supported by upstream, with a statement that it /will/ break in the future, it's simply a matter of time. Which makes a big difference when supporting that same specific use-case is the primary and arguably only reason the considered alternative exists. IOW, it's not about not liking upstream. It's about choosing a default that supports our default use-case. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman