On 9/16/23, David Seifert <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
Yet another example of choice being restricted by gentoo.
However, there at least is a better reason for not keeping libressl in
::Gentoo, that reason being qt.
With eudev, there is even less reason to remove it from ::gentoo.
The only maintenance burden with eudev is a couple of commits here and
there, mostly in virtuals.
