On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, 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 >>> >>> >> >> * you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the >> fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem > > True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the > Gentoo udev team despite being invited to.
That's a bit unrelated. It wasn't just about the gentoo ebuild. > >> to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were >> merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you >> point out. That has been discussed numerous of times. >> * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven > > I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus > restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes > creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for > uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs. > Wonder why udev upstream merged back changes if it was all that bad. >> * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct >> * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not >> for me since almost the beginning >> * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it >> agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete >> at some point, then it has been a success >> * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different >> mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision >> about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that >> people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason >> to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive >> and causes confusion. > > True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's > how maintainership works. > But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is > annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen. > Who lied?
