On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Seriously though, it makes more sense to have a conservative default > (udev-settle). Especially since OpenRC is not well-equipped to deal > with event-based device management. > > It seems to me that the problem is one of somebody not caring that the solution chosen can break an already functioning and stable system. This is not unlike the kerfufle that occurred when systemD was introduced not so long ago. To use it folks had to make major changes to their systems that took several months to iron out the kinks. Additionally, some of the folks pusing the change seemed to have a bad attitude about not caring that what they did had unintended consequences. (Enough so that Linus had some bad words for them!) It isn't that progress or systemD is "bad", (it did solve some problems) but that the manner in which it was introduced and pushed was poorly handled. To select a "solution" that breaks functioning systems is not (to me) an acceptable course of action. It is no justification to remove udev-settle to say that it "will speed thing up" as the only real advantage. Out of curiosity, why do folks say that the use of LABEL=<name> is not good? I realize that <name>s are not required when doing a mkfs, but if the admin does so reliably and wants to use LABEL= thereafter, why should it be "deprecated"? -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com