On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 1:24 PM Alexe Stefan <stefanalex...@gmail.com> 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 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 <stefanalex...@gmail.com> 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. >
Lots of bad faith in this post. This is bad and you should feel bad.
