|| ||Rich Freeman <rich0-AT-gentoo.org> |
|| ||gentoo-dev-AT-lists.gentoo.org |
|| ||Re: Any official position from Gentoo about systemd,
mdev and udev-static ? |
|| ||Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:35:28 -0400|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Jeff Horelick <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think this issue is currently in far too murky of a state to get any
> well-informed issue from the council. Perhaps when the issues get
> hammered out a bit more, but not currently.
I tend to agree. Taking a position for or against some piece of
technology doesn't really make sense. Making a decision on some
implementation detail that has a real impact on the distro makes
It is hard to anticipate what kinds of crises will continue to arise.
So, best to deal with them one at a time. Of course, it would be best
if the various package maintainers could talk to each other to
anticipate issues BEFORE they arise. If upstream wants to rename or
move half their binaries and the maintainers want to follow upstream,
I don't have a big problem with that per se, but at least talk about
it on the lists before unmasking things/etc.
Best to keep the council decisions actionable. And it is probably
best to let the directly impacted maintainers be the ones to appeal to
the council if the concern is breakage/etc.
If we were less of an enthusiast/choice distro then the obviously
solution would be to just ship a working udev and wait and see how the
whole mess works itself out elsewhere. It will be messy for a while
for Gentoo, because we generally strive to be "interesting." :)
to post comments)