On 9/12/23, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 1:24 PM Alexe Stefan <stefanalex...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> All this makes me wonder, what really is the reason for this shitshow. >> Something tells me systemd and it's shims will never be without a >> maintainer, regardless of how "popular" they are among gentoo folks. >> All this seems like intentional crippling of systemd alternatives. I >> don't use eudev, but I don't like seeing choice being taken away for >> such paper-thin reasons. >> The "reasons" listed for the removal are "dead upstream", which is >> false, and open "bugs", most of which are at most differences in the >> default behavior. >> I use a static /dev. That won't just stop working after an update, >> regardless of how much money changes hands. >> >> What does eudev need to do and doesn't do? From discussion in various >> places, I understand that it must set permissions for a devtmpfs and >> maybe create some symlinks. Does it not do that? >> I know that Lennart wants to do everything and do it poorly, but eudev >> doesn't have to do that too. What's the point of a for then? >> >> Overlays were mentioned in this thread. If we remove everything from >> ::gentoo in favor of overlays, what is the point of ::gentoo then? Do >> devs receive prizes based on how many useful packages they remove? >> Don't answer that, we all already know the answer. >> >> There is this quote from "the doctor" on the forums that sums up all >> the insanity: >> >> >As for software depending on what /dev you use, maybe he hasn't been >> > paying >attention but there is no sane reason any userspace application >> > should care how >the entries in /dev are made. There is also no sane >> > reason to break your API >every few months when the good idea fairy >> > comes to call. >> >> As for this: >> >> >Alexe Stefan <stefanalex...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> Must eudev be 100% compatible with all the garbage that gets shoved >> >> into udev to stay in ::gentoo? I don't see mdev being held to that >> >> standard. >> >> >Please don't top-post. >> >> >mdev is not a provider of virtual/libudev and doesn't pretend to be >> >via its pkgconfig file. >> >> What if eudev has to pretend, not because of build or runtime >> failures, but because of needless pesky pkgconfig checks? Should the >> default eudev setup include virtual/libudev in package.provided? I >> think it's better the way it is. >> > > Lots of bad faith in this post. This is bad and you should feel bad. > >
Say what you will, but tell me where I was wrong in my post. The reasons listed for the last rites are "dead upstream", which is false and those bugs. Orbea wrote more about those bugs, but it seems like most of those bugs were listed in the mask comment just to increase the number of open bugs.
