[blfs-dev] Udev vs Eudev page
Fernando de Oliveira
famobr at yahoo.com.br
Sat Jun 7 07:48:55 PDT 2014
Em 07-06-2014 11:12, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
> 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
> list again)
> 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.
Sorry, I did not notice that the page had been modified that way. It is
not correct, now.
> 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).
You are correct, page should be as in the old days.
> Now, why do the developers discourage updating udev, really? I found this link:
> They warn about issues, they do not really discourage...
I don't like very much to argue, but I replace "discourage" by "warn
> 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
> <above link>".
Of course not.
Correct thing to do is reverting to the old stile page, as you first
I did not want to update eudev (so I didn't take it earlier), exactly
because of this problem. If you had not taken it, I was intending to ask
exactly what could be done to update, as I did not want to build over
previous one in my system.
And the manpages are also a problem, as a recent post in other of our
lists demonstrated. We do not need to install them, exactly because
Bruce thought that it would not be a different version, in "extras". I
believe he forgot all these issues, when editing from udev to eudev (as
you once recalled me) to systemd to eudev again.
OT: please, use cco with my email address, when posting to the list and
privately in one go. :-)
More information about the blfs-dev