[blfs-dev] Udev vs Eudev page
pierre.labastie at neuf.fr
Sat Jun 7 07:12:02 PDT 2014
Le 07/06/2014 14:48, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit :
> Just remembered you have difficulties with my messages from the lists,
> so forwarding privately.
> -------- Mensagem original --------
> Assunto: Re: [blfs-dev] Udev vs Eudev page
> Data: Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:34:17 -0300
> De: Fernando de Oliveira <famobr at yahoo.com.br>
> Responder a: BLFS Development List <blfs-dev at lists.linuxfromscratch.org>
> Para: BLFS Development List <blfs-dev at lists.linuxfromscratch.org>
> Em 07-06-2014 08:24, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
>> I am wondering whether we should change the title of the Udev-extra page. Now,
>> we use eudev, which has a different version scheme from udev, so there could
>> be a version number in the title (as for other packages).
>> Also, we now reinstall the whole package.
>> So the page layout could be much closer to the other book pages.
>> For GCC (which adds "extras" as well), we just use GCC-<version>.
>> What do you think?
> My past experience about eudev is that the developers discouraged
> updating it in a system. That is the reason for it not having a version:
> you should install the same version as the one used when building LFS.
> The page often induces confusions, doubtes for the users.
> I asked Bruce to change eudev name for systemd, during the "hybrid"
> time, but he kept the same name udev.
> My particular point of view is that it should not be versioned, or would
> confuse even more the users. Changing to eudev, I would not mind,
> although most of the times that page is needed for providing "gudev",
> but Bruce might have a reason to keep it "udev extras".
(Thanks for your input, Fernando, and for posting privately. Posting to the
Well, so I have a problem:
(1) Let's say some user built LFS SVN just a few days ago with eudev 1.6,
which used udev version 212
(2) Pierre Labastie overzealously updates BLFS "udev-extra" to use eudev-1.7,
which is based on udev version 213.
(3) The user went on to BLFS, and is now in need of gudev. So he or she
rebuilds udev 213 over 212, which the developers discourage.
To avoid this, there should be no version at all in the "package information"
paragraph. And the page should be rewritten to explicitly specify to use
eudev-<your LFS version> (as it was when udev was separated from systemd).
Now, why do the developers discourage updating udev, really? I found this link:
They warn about issues, they do not really discourage...
So eventually, I still think the page should be made versioned, maybe with a
note : "if you upgrade from a previous version of eudev, please have a look at
More information about the blfs-dev