Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gentoo Developers Unhappy, Fork udev

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

  • Gentoo Developers Unhappy, Fork udev

    Phoronix: Gentoo Developers Unhappy, Fork udev

    The udev code-base has been forked by Gentoo Linux developers after they -- and other parties -- have been unhappy with the future direction of udev as set by systemd developers...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIzMDU

  • #2
    As I said on slashdot.org:

    I doubt anyone will listen to me at this point, but that was not an official announcement. I wrote that email to preempt a policy decision by the Gentoo Council that would have negatively affected the goals of our nascent project. A consequence of doing fully open source development is that with the exception of issues involving the security of our infrastructure, all of our internal emails are public.

    Anyway, the official announcement will come later. We are still working on becoming organized. I also probably should register on slashdot.

    Comment


    • #3
      Udev should be its own project as it is considered critical infrastructure, and it shouldn't be depending on any init subsystem in particular (like systemd), but be initsystem-agnostic. Smart move on the part of the Gentoo developers to do this fork and hopefully this codebase can be made available to other distros as well (debian, red hat, ubuntu..etc)

      Question is why should a critical component like udev be under the control of systemd developers anyway?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DeepDayze View Post
        Udev should be its own project as it is considered critical infrastructure, and it shouldn't be depending on any init subsystem in particular (like systemd), but be initsystem-agnostic. Smart move on the part of the Gentoo developers to do this fork and hopefully this codebase can be made available to other distros as well (debian, red hat, ubuntu..etc)

        Question is why should a critical component like udev be under the control of systemd developers anyway?
        Ask greghk AT gentoo DOT org why he gave maintainership to Redhat employees in the first place. As far as I am concerned, it should have stayed within Gentoo.

        Comment


        • #5
          This wanna make me switch back to gentoo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ryao View Post
            greghk AT gentoo DOT org
            Clearly no spambot has been updated to parse that syntax yet. Good show, sir. Let's continue making life as hard as possible for humans while not even making a blip of inconvenience for the machines we're trying to thwart.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by elanthis View Post
              Clearly no spambot has been updated to parse that syntax yet. Good show, sir. Let's continue making life as hard as possible for humans while not even making a blip of inconvenience for the machines we're trying to thwart.
              The inconvenience was intentional. It was meant as a subtle point that he is a Gentoo Developer, not an open invitation to harass him.

              Comment


              • #8
                Udev is a critical linux component. Systemd is quickly becoming one as well. However I have no flipping idea why udev is merged under systemd's tree in the first place. What benefit to this action am I overlooking?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ryao View Post
                  Ask greghk AT gentoo DOT org why he gave maintainership to Redhat employees in the first place. As far as I am concerned, it should have stayed within Gentoo.
                  I don't think Kay worked for RH back when Greg stopped co-maintaining udev.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by airlied View Post
                    I don't think Kay worked for RH back when Greg stopped co-maintaining udev.
                    You are right. He worked for Novell. I was unaware of this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
                      Udev is a critical linux component. Systemd is quickly becoming one as well. However I have no flipping idea why udev is merged under systemd's tree in the first place. What benefit to this action am I overlooking?
                      It's called 'vendor lock-in'. Merging these two projects is basically telling the community 'Use our lennartware or f**k you!'. Red Hat is a corporation, it's only natural for them to shiv competition by any means necessary, even if it's simply stupid thing to do in open source.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by kaszak View Post
                        It's called 'vendor lock-in'. Merging these two projects is basically telling the community 'Use our lennartware or f**k you!'. Red Hat is a corporation, it's only natural for them to shiv competition by any means necessary, even if it's simply stupid thing to do in open source.
                        Bullshit. Nobody stopped or stops anyone from creating another init system (ie upstart) or fork udev or create a newer better udev. Canonocal did it, Gentoo devs did it etc. And noone -since lennartware was mentioned- created a better pulse audio. Because probably people (read neckbeards in basements) like them find a meaning in their empty life by fiddling with text files for plugging in a USB DAC or BT headset or whatever. And again noone stoped anyone from creating anything. Its fucking Open Source and you can plug pretty much anything in it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Excellent news, the poettering madness must be stopped.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The only sad part I can see is how people talks about how only the *masked* version of udev is without support for *unmounted* /usr. That only clearly shows how little those people tend to use their MTP-devices and or udisks wth LVM/MDRAID and or alike.... I know I had troubles with udev not handling separate /usr since long before that page was written, and too bad it was written by lennard over at the systemd-freedesktop-page, because that only make the we-hate-lennart-camp mis the point of this whole trouble:

                            udev has been broken with a *unmounted* /usr for many years. And noone has had the time/will to fix it. And this was long before systemd even existed.

                            Now, I do not say that it is a bad thing this fork, because there are *many* other things to be desired from udev, which systemd does not seem interested in (that is why Linus really called the crazy).
                            So Richard, Good luck! And maybe someday we have something that we even can have a such a minimalistic version of that it even fits genkernel without bloating, because I really would like killing a lot of our code (staring at dolvm/domdraid) in favor of having something handling on demand, something last time I checked mdev did not.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Xake View Post
                              The only sad part I can see is how people talks about how only the *masked* version of udev is without support for *unmounted* /usr. That only clearly shows how little those people tend to use their MTP-devices and or udisks wth LVM/MDRAID and or alike.... I know I had troubles with udev not handling separate /usr since long before that page was written, and too bad it was written by lennard over at the systemd-freedesktop-page, because that only make the we-hate-lennart-camp mis the point of this whole trouble:

                              udev has been broken with a *unmounted* /usr for many years. And noone has had the time/will to fix it. And this was long before systemd even existed.

                              Now, I do not say that it is a bad thing this fork, because there are *many* other things to be desired from udev, which systemd does not seem interested in (that is why Linus really called the crazy).
                              So Richard, Good luck! And maybe someday we have something that we even can have a such a minimalistic version of that it even fits genkernel without bloating, because I really would like killing a lot of our code (staring at dolvm/domdraid) in favor of having something handling on demand, something last time I checked mdev did not.
                              The Linus crazy comment had nothing to do with Lennart or systemd in general. He was referring to Kay and the udev maintenance.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X