On 2/8/16 7:46 PM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 02/08/2016 08:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On 2/8/16, Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of >>> virtual/udev. For existing installs this has zero impact. For >>> stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled in instead of >>> udev. > >> Might I suggest a slightly different approach. I don't really >> have a strong preference on the order of providers in this >> virtual, though I don't really care for a direction of promoting >> in-house
what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've spoken with the various distros --- slack, parted magic, puppy. they get what's going on and they still see eudev is the best way forward for now. it may not be in the future, but neither will a udev extracted from a compiled full systemd codebase. >> tools over standardized ones (genkernel is another one that >> comes to mind). Gentoo's distinctiveness should come from being >> source-based and offering choices, not from a large collection >> of internal forks (I have nothing against people working on them, >> but they shouldn't be the default experience). > >> However, I think we're actually missing the bigger issue here. >> Why is this virtual even in @system to begin with? When I set up >> a chroot or some kinds of containers I don't need udev, or >> sysvinit (or openssh - but let's set that one aside for now). it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system. imo a stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
