On Fri, 2023-09-15 at 15:40 -0700, orbea wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 01:19:22 +0200
> Arsen Arsenović <ar...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> I just want to reiterate that the overlay suggestion is bad and the
> LibreSSL overlay is a good example of why. The result is most of the
> work is redoing things that ::gentoio has already done by copying
> ebuild changes where actual changes for LibreSSL itself or for
> packages
> not compatible with it is a vast minority of the work.
>
Many people told you that ::libressl is a waste of time, and you've
proven to us that it is.
