Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gentoo Developers Unhappy, Fork udev

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by AdamW View Post
    Arguably, without RH backing, the entire F/OSS ecosystem would be appreciably damaged. RH builds on the work of lots of other people, and in return, contributes an awful lot of work back to the wider community. Oracle is pleased to try and build on the work of lots of other people, including all of RH's work, and contribute absolutely nothing back to the community. Surely you can see why RH may have a motive to try and discourage Oracle's approach.
    Last I checked, Oracle still employed people working on X, btrfs, and gcc. Has this changed?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by AdamW View Post
      Arguably, without RH backing, the entire F/OSS ecosystem would be appreciably damaged. RH builds on the work of lots of other people, and in return, contributes an awful lot of work back to the wider community.
      I am tired and I appear to have missed this comment. I must thank curaga for highlighting it.

      I think that there is an argument to be made the RedHat's involvement in the community causes damage. RedHat has no qualms about sending poorly tested patches upstream and letting the community fix the problems that they cause. I am told by developers on our virtualization team that this is exactly what RedHat has been doing with QEMU and that upstream QEMU was removed from our tree because of it. The increasing dependence of GNOME on systemd is another instance of damage that RedHat's influence has had. It has forced Gentoo, FreeBSD and numerous others to try to fix the damage. I started the eudev project because I noticed changes that RedHat employees have made to udev are harming our tree. There are likely other examples, but three should be sufficient.

      The community would be better off if RedHat only contributed production ready changes. That would dramatically reduce the number of commits that Redhat employees make to various projects. However, many of us feel that RedHat is wasting our time on experimental patches and we would appreciate it if Redhat would stop doing things that make us feel that way. Forks such as eudev are what happen when Redhat's QA standards for upstream contributions annoy enough people.
      Last edited by ryao; 11-22-2012, 06:30 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by ryao View Post
        I am tired and I appear to have missed this comment. I must thank curaga for highlighting it.

        I think that there is an argument to be made the RedHat's involvement in the community causes damage. RedHat has no qualms about sending poorly tested patches upstream and letting the community fix the problems that they cause. I am told by developers on our virtualization team that this is exactly what RedHat has been doing with QEMU and that upstream QEMU was removed from our tree because of it. The increasing dependence of GNOME on systemd is another instance of damage that RedHat's influence has had. It has forced Gentoo, FreeBSD and numerous others to try to fix the damage. I started the eudev project because I noticed changes that RedHat employees have made to udev are harming our tree. There are likely other examples, but three should be sufficient.

        The community would be better off if RedHat only contributed production ready changes. That would dramatically reduce the number of commits that Redhat employees make to various projects. However, many of us feel that RedHat is wasting our time on experimental patches and we would appreciate it if Redhat would stop doing things that make us feel that way. Forks such as eudev are what happen when Redhat's QA standards for upstream contributions annoy enough people.
        I have to say that's the first I've heard of any such concerns with qemu. Have these been documented on the appropriate lists? Use of systemd by GNOME has nothing much to do with 'Red Hat influence' and everything to do with the fact that systemd provides capabilities of which GNOME wishes to make use. The whole point of systemd is to provide capabilities that sysv does not provide, after all. If it didn't, there'd be no point to its existence.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by curaga View Post
          Last I checked, Oracle still employed people working on X, btrfs, and gcc. Has this changed?
          Okay, I should qualify that somewhat. Oracle's contributions are significantly smaller than RH's - or, indeed, for instance, SUSE's, or many other projects, even non-commercial ones. And Oracle contributes nothing significant to the development of the precise codebase they ship, i.e. RHEL.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by AdamW View Post
            I have to say that's the first I've heard of any such concerns with qemu. Have these been documented on the appropriate lists? Use of systemd by GNOME has nothing much to do with 'Red Hat influence' and everything to do with the fact that systemd provides capabilities of which GNOME wishes to make use. The whole point of systemd is to provide capabilities that sysv does not provide, after all. If it didn't, there'd be no point to its existence.
            I am not involved with QEMU maintenance. I suggest that you contact Doug Goldstein for details.

            As for systemd, why is it that the GNOME project feels that mandatory dependence on such features is necessary when the KDE project does not? The KDE project seems to have no trouble writing cross platform compatible code. The only instance in which KDE fails to be cross platform involves Network Manager, which is Linux specific. As far as I know, Network Manager is developed primarily by RedHat employees. They seem to only care about Linux (and quite possibly, only RedHat's version of it). This causes headaches for us because Gentoo encompasses more than just Linux. Unfortunately, our teams dedicated to non-Linux things lack the man power necessary to address that issue.

            With that said, Gentoo has its own cross platform solution called OpenRC that runs on top of sysvinit. I do not think that we would be having this conversation had OpenRC been incorporated into Fedora instead of Upstart.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by AdamW View Post
              Okay, I should qualify that somewhat. Oracle's contributions are significantly smaller than RH's - or, indeed, for instance, SUSE's, or many other projects, even non-commercial ones. And Oracle contributes nothing significant to the development of the precise codebase they ship, i.e. RHEL.
              Their Linux port of DTrace seems useful. RedPatch is also rather nice.

              With that said, I do not think RedHat gives Oracle much opportunity to contribute to RHEL development. That could change if RedHat were to adopt Canonical's practices of giving commit privileges to people outside their organization and having an open bug tracker.
              Last edited by ryao; 11-22-2012, 07:09 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                okay, I already tried this once, but this is way off into the weeds, and I'm not interested in a bash fest. either we get back on the topic of udev or I'm out.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                  okay, I already tried this once, but this is way off into the weeds, and I'm not interested in a bash fest. either we get back on the topic of udev or I'm out.
                  I cannot imagine having a productive conversation with you about eudev until we do our first tag. We are a few weeks away from that. Lets talk then.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    As an additional note, I am putting the finishes touches on the kmod work. There are a few additional things that I want to address, but it will be back in HEAD soon.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by ryao View Post
                      I am not involved with QEMU maintenance. I suggest that you contact Doug Goldstein for details.

                      As for systemd, why is it that the GNOME project feels that mandatory dependence on such features is necessary when the KDE project does not? The KDE project seems to have no trouble writing cross platform compatible code. The only instance in which KDE fails to be cross platform involves Network Manager, which is Linux specific. As far as I know, Network Manager is developed primarily by RedHat employees.
                      I think they plan to support the systemd features but keep some sort of compatibility with systemd free system . But I suppose "solid" needs systemd support first?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Akka View Post
                        I think they plan to support the systemd features but keep some sort of compatibility with systemd free system . But I suppose "solid" needs systemd support first?
                        I still do not understand what is special about GNOME that the GNOME developers feel it necessary to try to force a dependency. They are just giving downstream developers more work to do.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by ryao View Post
                          I still do not understand what is special about GNOME that the GNOME developers feel it necessary to try to force a dependency. They are just giving downstream developers more work to do.
                          They force dependencies on you all the time, just like all other projects. In this case, it happens to be a dependency that you disagree with.
                          Yes, I know it "would make GNOME Linux only", but there are some points to consider:
                          1) Isn't that the de facto case already?
                          2) The dependency is IIRC on the systemd interface, meaning that you can replace it with other software that provides the same functionality.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by ryao View Post
                            Canonical has done wonders for Linux marketshare and our community grows in size as Ubuntu users have jumped ship. On the other hand, RedHat's actions have been fairly problematic. RedHat developers do not care about regressions that their patches cause in software that we distribute, which causes plenty of headaches for us. RedHat is also actively trying to chase other contributors to OSS projects away, such as Oracle and RisingTide Systems.

                            Which company do you think that we would prefer to go bankrupt tomorrow?
                            Who are 'we'? Are you now speaking for Gentoo as a whole, I really hope not because I doubt I could fathom a worse spokesperson.

                            And while I'm grateful for the work Canonical has put into making Linux a 'mainstream' desktop possibility, there's no comparing Red Hat's and Canonical's contributions to the Linux ecosystem, Oracle doesn't even register.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by kigurai View Post
                              They force dependencies on you all the time, just like all other projects. In this case, it happens to be a dependency that you disagree with.
                              Yes, I know it "would make GNOME Linux only", but there are some points to consider:
                              1) Isn't that the de facto case already?
                              2) The dependency is IIRC on the systemd interface, meaning that you can replace it with other software that provides the same functionality.
                              1. GNOME replaced CDE on Solaris as the only provided desktop environment not that long ago. It runs on more than just Linux.
                              2. That gives distribution developers more work.

                              Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                              Who are 'we'? Are you now speaking for Gentoo as a whole, I really hope not because I doubt I could fathom a worse spokesperson.

                              And while I'm grateful for the work Canonical has put into making Linux a 'mainstream' desktop possibility, there's no comparing Red Hat's and Canonical's contributions to the Linux ecosystem, Oracle doesn't even register.
                              It is a hypothetical question to which I gave a hypothetical answer. It was left vague intentionally. Also, Gentoo doesn't have a spokesperson. Each Gentoo developer's opinions are their own.

                              As for RedHat's contributions, they tend to focus on quantity over quality. With the exception of Linus' tree, patches that they provide to upstream projects often lack the scrutiny given to patches that they write against the Linux kernel. This seems to be in part because they only seem to care about their narrow set of target cases and in part because they do not seem to enforce QA standards on what they submit. It is nice of them to try to contribute, but there are plenty of people who would prefer RedHat employees to enforce better QA standards on their contributions and to handle cases that they do not necessarily need themselves. It would prevent regressions that such patches often cause for others.

                              By the way, I finished reworking the kmod builtin in eudev. It has been committed to HEAD.
                              Last edited by ryao; 11-23-2012, 02:24 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by ryao View Post
                                1. GNOME replaced CDE on Solaris as the only provided desktop environment not that long ago. It runs on more than just Linux.
                                Yes, I know it runs on more than Linux. The point was that all development seems to be done by Linux people. That is the impression I had when the systemd-in-Gnome issue surfaced the first time around.
                                Also, the WP article on JDS/OpenSolaris says that "OpenSolaris Desktop is now tied to the OpenSolaris operating system", which makes your point kind of moot

                                2. That gives distribution developers more work.
                                That's what usually happens when you decide to go against the stream. But I guess you know that already, with the fork and all

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X