On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:23:49 +0300 Alexe Stefan <[email protected]> wrote:
> All this makes me wonder, what really is the reason for this shitshow. > Something tells me systemd and it's shims will never be without a > maintainer, regardless of how "popular" they are among gentoo folks. > All this seems like intentional crippling of systemd alternatives. I > don't use eudev, but I don't like seeing choice being taken away for > such paper-thin reasons. > The "reasons" listed for the removal are "dead upstream", which is > false, and open "bugs", most of which are at most differences in the > default behavior. I see 9 issues listed for sys-fs/eudev on the Gentoo tracker. I closed 1 as invalid. https://bugs.gentoo.org/904741 And submitted an upstream PR for another. https://bugs.gentoo.org/771705 https://github.com/eudev-project/eudev/pull/261 As for the rest... Possibly invalid? https://bugs.gentoo.org/667686 (Outdated?) https://bugs.gentoo.org/711462 Possibly outdated? https://bugs.gentoo.org/713106 And the last 4 need to further investigation. https://bugs.gentoo.org/851255 https://bugs.gentoo.org/770358 https://bugs.gentoo.org/668880 https://bugs.gentoo.org/753134 Surprisingly I don't see an issue for sticky-tags. > I use a static /dev. That won't just stop working after an update, > regardless of how much money changes hands. > > What does eudev need to do and doesn't do? From discussion in various > places, I understand that it must set permissions for a devtmpfs and > maybe create some symlinks. Does it not do that? > I know that Lennart wants to do everything and do it poorly, but eudev > doesn't have to do that too. What's the point of a for then? > > Overlays were mentioned in this thread. If we remove everything from > ::gentoo in favor of overlays, what is the point of ::gentoo then? Do > devs receive prizes based on how many useful packages they remove? > Don't answer that, we all already know the answer. > > There is this quote from "the doctor" on the forums that sums up all > the insanity: > > >As for software depending on what /dev you use, maybe he hasn't been > >paying >attention but there is no sane reason any userspace > >application should care how >the entries in /dev are made. There is > >also no sane reason to break your API >every few months when the > >good idea fairy comes to call. > > As for this: > > >Alexe Stefan <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Must eudev be 100% compatible with all the garbage that gets shoved > >> into udev to stay in ::gentoo? I don't see mdev being held to that > >> standard. > > >Please don't top-post. > > >mdev is not a provider of virtual/libudev and doesn't pretend to be > >via its pkgconfig file. > > What if eudev has to pretend, not because of build or runtime > failures, but because of needless pesky pkgconfig checks? Should the > default eudev setup include virtual/libudev in package.provided? I > think it's better the way it is. >
