On 12/09/2023 23:23, Eddie Chapman wrote:
Andrew Ammerlaan wrote:
On 12 September 2023 21:47:31 CEST, Eddie Chapman <ed...@ehuk.net> wrote:
Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
<snip>
* You don't gain anything from using it instead of udev.
(Nobody does.)
Is there only 1 tool for the job? Why do we have both the OpenIPMI and
ipmitool projects, both curl and wget, chrome and firefox. Wouldn't it
be better if we just choose one of each of those pairs and concentrate
on it?
So why should anyone put up the effort to package it?
Same question for the above choices and plenty of other examples.
What's wrong with having an alternative purely for competition?
Having options is only valuable if the different options actually bring
something to the table. Choice for the sake of choice is just a waste of
time and effort. Firefox is clearly different then Chrome, each comes
with its own advantages and disadvantages, and based on this a user can
make an educated choice. What I have not yet read in any message in this
long thread, is **why** one would want to use eudev, what are its
advantages? Why not use sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev]?
You really are on a slippery slope if you're going to insist that someone
"ought" to use a certain software, that there is no advantage in using an
alternative and therefore you shouldn't. Also, people choose alternatives
for entirely non-technical reasons which are valid. These might be
political, license, or they just like the author or community of one
project better than another. Microsoft Office is probably a better office
suite technically and feature-wise than Libreoffice, yet many people use
Libreoffice instead. That doesn't mean Libreoffice users are "just plain
wrong". Why do we have so many Linux distributions if they all offer
largely the same set of software? Why use Ubuntu over Debian or vice
versa? What's the point of openrc? Which is better GCC or Clang/LLVM?
This is a misrepresentation of my point. I never said that any rationale
for choosing one piece of software over another must be purely
technical. A license, political issue or whatever may be a legitimate
advantage that one option has over another. I'm simply stating that no
one has explicitly provided any rational for choosing eudev over
systemd-utils[udev].
From the lack of response to my original question I can only conclude
that the only reason to choose eudev over systemd-utils[udev] is because
the latter package has "systemd" in the name (the horror!). If that is
truly the case it would be a lot simpler to rename
sys-apps/systemd-utils to
sys-apps/utilities-from-the-init-system-that-must-not-be-named, then to
continue to maintain eudev.
You are free to spend your time and effort on whatever you wish, maintain
eudev as proxy or in some overlay, but don't expect others to put in
their time and effort if you can't convince them the extra choice has
value and is therefore worth their time and effort.
Best regards,
Andrew
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? 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?
If someone were to step up and say they are willing to spend their time
and effort maintaining eudev and fixing the open issues then sure we can
keep it, I never said otherwise. However this package has been
maintainer-needed for quite a long time now and no one has stepped up,
at some point someone has to pull the plug.
My point (which again you misrepresented) is that if you can't provided
a solid reason for choosing eudev over systemd-utils[udev] you are going
to have a very hard time convincing others to put in their time and
effort maintaining it, no matter how loudly you complain on the mailing
list. So either maintain it yourself in some overlay, or provide some
solid and convincing argumentation in favor of eudev. And as I already
pointed out above "choice for the sake of choice" is not a convincing
argument.
And then another thing, how is it possible that so many people missed
the news item? They are displayed quite prominently I think, and emerge
will keep buggering you about it until it is marked as read. Just
wondering if there is something that can be improved here.
Best regards,
Andrew
