On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 5:23 PM Eddie Chapman <ed...@ehuk.net> wrote:
> Why would you think that by having an alternative in tree it means that
> everyone else is then forced into doing work that they don't want to and
> it will inconvenience everyone?
Because it's already happened!
commit 6404b064d63d182da4a8a193533a188cdf832d41
Author: Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun Jul 30 14:07:47 2023 -0400
virtual/libudev: add eudev and sticky-tags USE flags
eudev lacks API support for the new libudev functions that differentiate
between sticky and current tags on device events.
Add a USE flag so we can depend on the new API from libgudev.
commit 319b4ed88674af738bd3fd90e56dc06c88de15db
Author: Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun Jul 30 14:10:44 2023 -0400
dev-libs/libgudev: depend on virtual/libudev[sticky-tags]
And as a result we have had at least three bug reports from users
complaining that they cannot update:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/913702
https://bugs.gentoo.org/913900
https://bugs.gentoo.org/913954
> What if someone came along now and said
> they were willing to "step up" and maintain eudev and they were suitably
> qualified? Is that really going to force everyone else to modify their
> ways?
It doesn't matter what people say. It matters what they do. And so far
no one has done anything in more than two years to make eudev worth
keeping.
But the core of the issue for me is -- how is eudev even the slightest
bit better in any way than systemd-utils[udev]?
