On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: > 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.
Examples? I don't necessarily stay abreast of what new gizmos upstream udev may or may not be adding that eudev may or may not be missing. Is there something critical that you have observed going into upstream udev that eudev is missing that would be super-awesome or which otherwise improves the lives of aspiring Gentoo users everywhere? Or is it related to unpatched security issues, perhaps? Is there a list of unmitigated CVE's that upstream udev has patched that the eudev team has not? Have you tried reaching out to the eudev developer(s) to see if they're responsive and to maybe raise your concerns about aforementioned "bitrot"? >> 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. You meant to say "has yet to come true". Show me something from the upstream udev developers where they permanently close the door to making udev a symbiotic element to systemd and then I'll accept your use of past tense. Elsewise, as long as that door remains open, then future tense is the correct tense. > > 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. My search was based on the string "sys-fs/eudev", which is the standard nomenclature for naming bugs. If there are other bugs open for eudev that are missing that, then they need their titles updated. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
