On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new > > systems from eudev to udev. > > > > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since > > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at > > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked, > > this applies to non-glibc configurations). > > > > What do people think? > > > > Thanks, > > > > William > > Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, why not? > > If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix?
bitrot and bus factor. > It works fine for new installs, having just done one myself. Seems like we > aught to keep it that way. I count six open bugs against eudev right now, > and none of them look to be critical, so I vote "no" on your proposal unless > there is some verifiable reason why eudev is no longer suitable to be the > default udev provider. The thing is, udev was never unsuitable. AS I said the original change was not because of the lack of suitability, but because of fear of what the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. Not that it matters much, but I'll go there since you did, I count 26 open issues against eudev and some of them have been open since 2012. William
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
