orbea <or...@riseup.net> writes: >> Arsen meant incompatibilities of systemd-udev, not of eudev [1]. No >> idea what's the current state of udev upstream is though. Alpine uses >> musl, that's one of reasons why they are interested in eudev.
Indeed. > Oh, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding. After re-reading I don't > know if eudev needs to be reforked, ... It does. It's been at least six years. The current MO (which is to wait for a problem then cherry pick or copy in a fix) is inefficient, ineffective, and requires /known problems/ to reappear. > ... missing functionality that downstreams are using can be added... Doing this via reimplementation is a waste of effort. > ... and otherwise focus on cleaning up and improving the code > independently of systemd. For instance there is no reason that > LibreSSL should refork OpenSSL. These are apples and oranges. OpenSSLs code is significantly worse than systemd code. There has also been no major improvement to code in eudev over upstream counterparts. I can point to one systemic issue in systemd code (overuse of VLAs/alloca), which is actively being corrected (but not in eudev, because it's on life support, rather than being maintained). Note that I'm not saying this as solely a Gentoo developer, I'm saying this because I know what the state of the eudev project is and what it takes to refork (since I've partly done so), and the advantages and disadvantages of both the current approach and the one I suggest, and I see _no_ reason to continue as the project does today. systemd-utils[udev] is simply the easiest implementation of what I preach. Please attempt to bring eudev up to snuff via copying and cherry-picking before setting your mind on continuing the status quo. I guarantee that less time would be spent reforking. Supporting eudev will be clearly useful only when that happens. Have a lovely night. >> >> [1] See >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/eudev.git/commit/?id=f559dc96f4105f605272defac9276ef9cb6f5dc6 >> >> > >> >> >> >>> 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
