On Tue, 8/23/16, Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:

Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev]
To: dng@???
Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 5:10 PM

>> 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
>>
> By the way, when did Linux OK kdbus?
>
> SteveT
>
--------------------------------------------

I don't think they have. That was Lennart's wishful thinking. Wasn't it around that time that Kay Sievers tried and Linus boxed him hard upside the head and sent him packing?

golinux