"Eddie Chapman" <ed...@ehuk.net> writes: > Not aiming this at you personally but this argument has been made more > than once in this thread and I personally don't think it carries any > weight, because it can be levelled at anyone who raises an issue about > anything. If you don't like it, then just go and roll your own.
::gentoo is supposed to be a coherent set of packages provided by Gentoo
developers, with a reasonable scope. eudev no longer fits into the
'coherent' part of that definition, and there are zero advantages to it
over systemd-utils[udev].
The _only_ difference between a sys-fs/eudev::eudev and
sys-fs/eudev::gentoo package that would exist if the former were to be
made into an overlay is that Gentoo developers would be responsible for
the latter. There are no Gentoo developers interested in being
responsible for the latter (AFAIK), and there is no tangible benefit to
the latter for any Gentoo developer to latch onto.
Seeing as there is at least half a dozen people seemingly interested in
maintaining eudev, why not just form an overlay? This way,
virtual/{,lib}udev doesn't get polluted with implementations which don't
fullfil the definition of a virtual provider in ::gentoo, nor with
use-flag hacks, but users which wish to use eudev still have access to
it, and upstream eudev gets half a dozen potential contributors, which
are needed, _badly_. At risk of repeating myself, I'd like to point out
again that the only viable approach for eudev upstream to take is to
re-fork systemd and find a viable way to stay up-to-date, while fixing
up incompatibilities with musl. I've made proposals a few years ago and
restated them in this thread.
> Of course I know I (and anyone else) can do that. So then what's the
> point of discussing anything then?
Just because an argument is widely applicable does not make it invalid.
Note that this argument is seldom the first resort, since, as you note,
it's not overly productive. Indeed, it was not the first resort here.
sys-fs/eudev has long overstayed the original removal plan.
> What's the point of having a big tree with hundreds of packages? Why
> not have a very minimal tree instead and let everyone go and run
> multiple independent repos so we can all do what we want? Then we
> wouldn't have any discussion about what to include and what not. In
> fact maybe that's not a bad idea.
I'm not sure how to fit this within the context of the thread.
Have a lovely evening.
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
