On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:20:34 +0000 (UTC)
Go Linux <golinux@???> wrote:

> On Sun, 8/21/16, Daniel Reurich <daniel@???> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]
> To: dng@???
> Date: Sunday, August 21, 2016, 3:08 PM
> >>
> >> He guys,
> >>
> >> I've been at work for a week or so and today I looked at the DNG
> >> list for the latest activities around vdev, but there has almost
> >> been no activity on vdev as far as I can see. OTOH, last week I
> >> tested eudev on a separate partition and that seems to work quite
> >> well.
> >
> > You are mistaken, there has been lots of activity around vdev and
> > making it installable.
> >
> >>
> >> I think it might be a good idea to leave vdev for what it is and
> >> to switch to eudev. It is moreorless maintained (the latest change
> >> is two weeks ago) and it works well. We should not reinvent the
> >> wheel IMHO. And as there has been no response from the original
> >> vdev author, I think it's better to package eudev for Devuan and
> >> to make it available for Jessie and Ascii. The latest version is
> >> 3.2.
> >
> > Well quite frankly you don't get to make that call. Eudev is just a
> > hack that from what I gather is isolating the systemd-udev changes
> > and bringing them in to eudev. IMHO that is less sustainable then
> > vdev because it relies on developers from systemd to play nice with
> > udev and not deprecate features that don't serve systemd's needs.
> > At the end of the day, I consider eudev as at best marginally
> > better the eudev, but still far to closely coupled with systemd to
> > be useful in the medium to long term.
> >
> > With regards to vdev, I'm sure if Jude didn't come back, others
> > would pick up his work and progress it, as is happening now around
> > packaging it. I think it rather disingenuous of you to imply it's
> > a dead project whilst claiming that eudev, the re-animated zombie
> > of systemd-udev as a better and only option. It's not better, and
> > it's not the only option either.
> >
> > Whilst I respect the work to package eudev and having it as an
> > option in Devuan, I will personally very loudly push back on any
> > attempt to derail alternatives such as vdev - unless those
> > alternative are demonstrably built on the same flawed design
> > principles as systemd.
> >
> > Daniel.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> I agree that relying on anything connected to udev will likely not be
> sustainable in the long term. I was reminded of this just today in a
> private discussion I'm having with someone over at FDN . . . yes, I
> still hang out there to advocate for non-systemd Linux. S/he posted
> this link which finally pushed them over the edge and away from the
> path that Debian has taken:
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html

Oh, he's reeeeealy enjoying this, isn't he? Little does he know that
he's just the exact kind of nutcase Redhat needs right now, and that
soon enough, they'll kick him to the curb.

But yeah, they're gunning for udev, so we need a substitute.

By the way, when did Linux OK kdbus?

SteveT

Steve Litt
August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting
Brand new, second edition
http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr