If you're specifically NOT using systemd why would you want systemd-udev ?
( or for that matter anything systemd-* )

On Gentoo I use eudev and everything compiles happily, looking at the
source tree for eudev it seems to have its own version of libudev
(https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/tree/master/src/libudev) - unless I'm
missing something whats the problem with using eudev ?


On 29/11/14 18:34, Matteo Panella wrote:
> On 29/11/2014 18:28, Haines Brown wrote:
>> While I'm at it, I'd also like to see udev cease being default and
>> replaced by eudev. I'm interested in people's thoughts about this.
> Usual disclaimer: I speak only for myself.
>
> TL;DR: it can't coexist in the archive with systemd-udev without
> introducing ugly hacks with metapackages, sorting out and assuring
> ABI-compatibility for libudev and libgudev is a pain in the neck, but
> that aside it could be done.
>
> Now for the longer explanation.
>
> eudev is developed mostly in lockstep with systemd-udev, so each release
> of eudev corresponds to a given systemd-udev release. This is good,
> because we'd only need to package the version of eudev which corresponds
> to the version of systemd-udev in the main archive.
>
> The bad part is ensuring ABI-compatibility for and libgudev.
> Both have a *massive* amount of rdeps, and if ABI-compatibility cannot
> be assured all rdeps must be rebuilt. That's not easy.
>
> The ugly part is coexistence in the archive: simply put, you can't have
> both without rewriting the control file for all rdeps or introducing an
> insane number of metapackages _in the main Debian archive_ (I guess
> ftpmaster would have a thing or two to say about it...).
>
> The last part is controversial, because if Devuan adopts eudev it would
> have to effectively mask out systemd-udev by shipping packages with the
> same names but higher priority, negating the freedom of choice to end
> users (quite ironic, isn't it?).
>
> Again, this cannot be avoided: it's either one implementation or the other.
>
> (and that's the reason every ITP for eudev usually becomes stale after
> some time: you need cooperation from udev maintainers, fleshing out a
> policy for the switch and in the end you could always have ftpmaster say
> something along the lines of "you're out of your collective minds,
> choose one implementation and be done with it!" - and probably they'd be
> right)
>
> Regards,
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng