Udev vs mknod - libdrm package build

I am wondering about the distribution of responsibilities between endeavourOS and plain Archlinux:

I have a fresh, plain, up-to-date version of endeavourOS with the KDE desktop on X11; this installation has systemd and udev enabled.

The Archlinux libdrm package (https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/libdrm/) is installed - but that package apparently quite deliberately has been built with “udev” turned off (see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57851 and the current state at https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/libdrm/-/blob/88a638bcc7f4212e6b8691ec4f7751222e32d429/PKGBUILD#L28)

So, quite obviously, I am running a systemd/udev system, but libdrm is not udev-enabled.

To me this looks like a mismatch. Fortunately, this mismatch does not hurt at this time, as everything seems to be running OK, by chance, in my current hardware environment. But once we get into the udev scenario (hot-plug, for instance?) this will matter.

Who is responsible for delivering / picking the right build of libdrm?

(For the record, the big distributions all run systemd and all have udev enabled in libdrm. I do see a case for Archlinux shipping builds with udev == off, but I am also somewhat astounded that libdrm has this as a build-time option)