On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:06:32 +0100 "Eddie Chapman" <ed...@ehuk.net> wrote:
> orbea wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:23:49 +0300 > > 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 see 9 issues listed for sys-fs/eudev on the Gentoo tracker. > > > > I closed 1 as invalid. > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/904741 > > > > And submitted an upstream PR for another. > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/771705 > > https://github.com/eudev-project/eudev/pull/261 > > > > As for the rest... > > > > Possibly invalid? > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/667686 (Outdated?) > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/711462 > > > > Possibly outdated? > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/713106 > > > > And the last 4 need to further investigation. > > > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/851255 > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/770358 > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/668880 > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/753134 > > > > > > Surprisingly I don't see an issue for sticky-tags. > > > >> 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. > > Number of open bugs on its own is really not a good argument for > removing a package. sys-fs/udev has about 15 open bugs currently so > go figure. But the > sticky-tags API issue, to be fair to those who argue for eudev > removal, is the main issue, rather than the open bugs. Agreed, that does seem the most pressing issue as far as I can tell, the followup would probably be the cross-compile issue I submitted an upstream PR for. > > But I want to ask: what are the obstacles to keeping eudev in tree but > effectively only for non-desktop use cases? I would love to hear > specific reasons from those who are pro-removal why eudev can't exist > at least for the server use case. > > Because the sticky-tags issue only really affects desktop users. And > if some important server package comes along in future and wants to > use a new udev API feature, then implementing individual features in > eudev is more of a realistic proposition than the continual burden of > implementing everything. Even with a desktop its not necessarily an issue for someone using a minimal window manager. Everything I want works just fine on my eudev gaming system including Steam. The only thing in the ::gentoo repo that requires sticky-tags is dev-libs/libgudev which I believe is mostly required by desktop managers such as Gnome. It appears to be optional in even XFCE, but I am not sure of the ramifications of disabling the system-info USE flag in xfce-base/libxfce4ui. Additionally the workaround PR proposed for the upstream eudev repo would make libgudev happy while potentially working satisfactorily in many cases? This would require testing I can't accomplish. > > I have many Gentoo server instances out there and I really can't see > any sensible reason why eudev can't continue being the udev provider > in those scenarios, and surely portage can easily handle marking > eudev as not compatible with desktop package installations. Then for > desktop users the choice is between eudev or a desktop. Granted it's > not ideal but it's better than no eudev at all in tree, and I'm sure > there are other similar situations in tree currently where the user > has to make a choice between one or the other thing. I think this is effectively accomplished here? https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/blob/1ba10d93746ee934fc5bd0a5089e87d897d77eee/virtual/libudev/libudev-251-r1.ebuild#L15 > > Now I know the argument that might come back is "well sure, but who's > going to do the work needed to be able to make the choice possible?". > Well, let's see, maybe someone will volunteer, but I just want to know > first is there any insurmountable obstacle that makes that scenario > not even possible? > >
