[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-16 Thread Duncan
Michał Górny posted on Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100 as excerpted: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100 Patrick Lauer > wrote: > >> On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by >> > systemd haters just to

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-15 Thread Duncan
Francesco Riosa posted on Mon, 15 Feb 2016 13:13:37 +0100 as excerpted: > Neither this is totally true, or put another way, everybody which is NOT > using systemd is using eudev (or some form of static /dev). > So obviously this is totally relevant for people that don't use systemd. Not really

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-13 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 02/10/2016 20:15, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 10/02/16 12:09 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:26:12 -0600 William Hubbs >> wrote: > > Often the decision to procrastinate is a decision that is rewarded. That should be considered carefully. >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread waltdnes
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote > On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: > > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: > > > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Micha?? Górny wrote: > > >> I'm strongly against this, because: > > > > > > agreed. i also

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Michał Górny
Dnia 10 lutego 2016 15:27:50 CET, waltd...@waltdnes.org napisał(a): >On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote >> On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: >> > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as >excerpted: >> > > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Micha?? Górny wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote >> On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: >> > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: >> > > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Micha?? Górny wrote: >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread William Hubbs
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 09:52:29AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote > >> On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: > >> > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Brian Dolbec
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:26:12 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > > Often the decision to procrastinate is a decision that is rewarded. > > That should be considered carefully. > > + 1. > > I also saw another issue that made me shudder. If we change the > default to eudev,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Duncan
Nicolas Sebrecht posted on Thu, 11 Feb 2016 02:46:33 +0100 as excerpted: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that external >> tools already do this just fine. That's another difference, though not >> one

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread »Q«
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:27:50 -0500 waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:09:58AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote > > On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: > > > the way we're running udev is strongly > > > discouraged and generally not supported by upstream, with a > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/02/16 12:09 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:26:12 -0600 William Hubbs > wrote: > > >>> Often the decision to procrastinate is a decision that is >>> rewarded. That should be considered carefully. >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-10 Thread Daniel Campbell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/10/2016 05:15 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 10/02/16 12:09 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 10:26:12 -0600 William Hubbs >> wrote: > > Often the decision to procrastinate is a decision that is

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Duncan
Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Michał Górny wrote: >> I'm strongly against this, because: > > agreed. i also don't see any reasons in Patrick's e-mail to suggest the > current default is inadequate. "i don't like upstream" isn't

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Duncan
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 13:29:04 -0500 as excerpted: > This isn't holding back systemd, and doesn't really have anything to do > with systemd at all. /Now/ you and I (both systemd users) are on the same page, here. =:^) The outcome of this debate isn't going to affect systemd

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Duncan
Daniel Campbell posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 06:44:34 -0800 as excerpted: > If anything, a developer will have more control over how their daemon > is handled in the rc script. They would have to read systemd's C code > or its plethora of unit options to set it up 'just right' to achieve > the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Alex McWhirter
On 02/09/2016 05:39 PM, Duncan wrote: > I'd agree, except that the way we're running udev is strongly discouraged > and generally not supported by upstream, with a statement that it /will/ > break in the future, it's simply a matter of time. > > Which makes a big difference when supporting that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread M. J. Everitt
On 09/02/16 23:38, Alex McWhirter wrote: > On 02/09/2016 05:39 PM, Duncan wrote: >> I'd agree, except that the way we're running udev is strongly discouraged >> and generally not supported by upstream, with a statement that it /will/ >> break in the future, it's simply a matter of time. >> >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 Thread Mike Frysinger
On 09 Feb 2016 22:39, Duncan wrote: > Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: > > On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Michał Górny wrote: > >> I'm strongly against this, because: > > > > agreed. i also don't see any reasons in Patrick's e-mail to suggest the > > current default

[gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-08 Thread Duncan
Michał Górny posted on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:46:06 +0100 as excerpted: > 4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks at > documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev > diverges from upstream udev to this point? IMO that's the most important of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-08 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 2/8/16 7:47 PM, Duncan wrote: > Michał Górny posted on Mon, 08 Feb 2016 13:46:06 +0100 as excerpted: > >> 4. eudev is underdocumented, and the maintainer admits that 'he sucks at >> documenting'. In fact, did anyone even bother to note how far eudev >> diverges from upstream udev to this