On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote: >> Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> >>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in >>> sys-fs/udev >>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a >>> single valid bug filed about them. >>> >>> Stop spreading FUD. >>> >>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like >>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on. >> >> So your real agenda is to kill eudev? Maybe it is you that is spreading >> FUD instead of others. Like others have said, udev was going to cause >> issues, eudev has yet to cause any. > > Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't > bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version > of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. > And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what > sys-fs/eudev has. > Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to > sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system. > And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so > it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily. > They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding. > > Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work > and user confusion needs to stop. > > - Samuli >
>From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky, unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to? A group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ... BillK
