On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 21:55 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > 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 suppose nobody remembers the time (the previous year) where eudev broke reverse dependencies because of wrong version number, and it took around 3 months to get a fix (read: changing the version number) into ~arch. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
