On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 11:04 AM Eddie Chapman <ed...@ehuk.net> wrote: > Yes I regularly do this if there is a piece of software not in the tree, I > have a local repo full of stuff. But this argument doesn't hold as much > weight when it comes to a package like this which is integrated in the > core of the system. People who really want to continue using it are going > to experience a lot of pain trying to maintain it for themselves out of > tree, much more so than they would normally. That's one reason why I think > the decision deserves more scrutiny.
Yes, people who insist on using a piece of software that's basically stagnant are going to have trouble trying to maintain it themselves. You're right. You're just missing that this is because of upstream eudev not backporting anything anymore. Take a look at https://openhub.net/p/eudev 12 month summary * 22 Commits - Down -97 (81%) from previous 12 months * 5 Contributors - Down -5 (50%) from previous 12 months There used to be backports from upstream udev like this: https://github.com/eudev-project/eudev/commit/9d4010a3629ebc1d915b7f2d3e2d7be83d79b4f4 But it seems that no one does that anymore since blueness stopped. blueness -- one of the original maintainers of eudev and the author of the news item that says the reason for eudev's existence no longer applies... So tl;dr: we're sorry eudev is no longer viable. We kept it in ::gentoo for far longer than it should have been.
