Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>
>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>>
>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't
>> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version
>> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>
>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work
>> and user confusion needs to stop.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
>
> From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what
> about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky,
> unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even
> though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to?  A
> group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly
> without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ...
>
> BillK
>

I second this statement!
The monolithic nature of the systemd maintainer is something that
should be banned (dependency, which requires dependency recursively
until you end up with no choice and medium quality components).
There was no reason to merge the code base of udev to any other code base.
There was no reason to kill backward compatibility.
Well, you all know the reason of why eudev was established.
I am very happy with eudev, had zero issues.

Thanks!
Alon Bar-Lev