Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gentoo Announces Eudev Project -- Its Udev Fork

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
    If udev is becoming redundant duplicating the functionality of systemd, it is logical to drop it.
    Huh? What?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by finalzone View Post
      interesting read (and the other associated comments / links in comments).

      Originally posted by RealNC View Post
      Huh? What?
      +1 lol.

      Originally posted by finalzone
      If udev is becoming redundant duplicating the functionality of systemd, it is logical to drop it
      you do realize that this comment makes absolutely no sense, right?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
        An arch dev -and sysD contributor- commented that in order to fix what they wanted to achieve all they had to do was "write some trivial patches for the builtsystem". Probably the hate for Lennart and Kay played a big role in this fork.
        The Gentoo udev maintainers had insisted that we had to follow upstream's vision, which gave the rest of us little choice. Interestingly enough, they are now talking about merging our changes back into their package. This requires maintaining patches that systemd would never accept, but they seem willing to do that now when before they would not.

        Anyway, the fork will enforce discipline in what is committed to HEAD from a QA standpoint. The idea is that you should always be able to update an existing system to HEAD without things breaking. Having a separate project is necessary to obtain this because the systemd developers have different priorities. The end result should be better than what we would have had if the Gentoo udev maintainers had been more flexible from the start, so I consider this to be for the best.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by YoungManKlaus View Post
          Ok, after reading up on the follup-thread it seems that various patches in the direction were rejected, as were bug reports (closed with "WONTFIX"). So, it seems, forking has it's valid points ... hope they can work out their differences though and merge back together (someone needs to convince Lennart first that udev without systemd also has it's use(r)s)
          Are you perhaps referring to the comment in the gentoo-devel thread that says:

          "They've essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs from
          non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX."

          In that case, this is speculation, and not fact. I looked through the list of systemd bugzilla and found nothing obvious to support that claim either.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RealNC View Post
            Lennart Poettering actually said:



            So if people wanted to have a supported udev for non-SystemD setups, forking looked like the only option. It looks like udev *is* planning to drop support for anything else.

            ON the same email you can also read:

            Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of
            systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new
            features to that or anything.
            Also more drama:
            https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/WSYEByD8xDp

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              ON the same email you can also read:
              Uhm, did you read the part that says:

              "We will not polish that, or add new features to that or anything."

              You actually even quoted it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                Uhm, did you read the part that says:

                "We will not polish that, or add new features to that or anything."

                You actually even quoted it.
                I don't read this as we will not accept patches that let it built by itself. If someone posted a patch like that and lennart or kay rejected it -i am not following systemd that much- then ok.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                  ON the same email you can also read:
                  I like how you fail to understand your own quote.

                  Say that newer kernel introduces the possibility of some new features when it comes to how modules/firmwares are handled, and you want your system to make use of them.
                  Then according to that letter you quoted you either have to start using systemd-udev (that is systemd and their version of udev), or fork udev.
                  This since the standalone-version of udev you can build from the systemd sources will, according to your quote, not receive polishing nor new features.

                  See the problem with that?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Xake View Post
                    I like how you fail to understand your own quote.

                    Say that newer kernel introduces the possibility of some new features when it comes to how modules/firmwares are handled, and you want your system to make use of them.
                    Then according to that letter you quoted you either have to start using systemd-udev (that is systemd and their version of udev), or fork udev.
                    This since the standalone-version of udev you can build from the systemd sources will, according to your quote, not receive polishing nor new features.

                    See the problem with that?
                    I see the problem with assumptions possibilities ifs and whens. So in your case until the kernel introduces features that require a fork i don't see the need for one. But of course they are free to do whatever they want and fork whatever. In the same way people are free to built shelters because the end of the world (or the E17 release ) is coming on the 21st.

                    More drama.
                    https://plus.google.com/115547683951...ts/jcCjMct3SJ3

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Teho View Post
                      When? Because it's definetly still supported.
                      the moment when L.P. posted an email that udev outside of systemd is not supported anymore and there will be zero new features for udev-outside-systemd users.

                      compare this:
                      http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linu...ug.devel/17392
                      with this:
                      http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linu....general/44475

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
                        I don't read this as we will not accept patches that let it built by itself. If someone posted a patch like that and lennart or kay rejected it -i am not following systemd that much- then ok.
                        William Hubbs wrote patches for that which Lennart Poettering rejected.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ryao View Post
                          William Hubbs wrote patches for that which Lennart Poettering rejected.
                          You mean these?
                          http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-.../msg05287.html

                          So if I understand this right in systemd-devs pov if you wanted to use only udev you have to compile whole systemd at the same time. This would be ok binary distros like ubuntu and tho upstart, but not in source distros like gentoo. If I would want to use only udev with gentoo I don't want to compile something that are not needed, it's just a waste of time and resources of my own computer. And what Hubbs suggested with his patches is to add two configure flags that make possible to compile only udev.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tuke81 View Post
                            You mean these?
                            http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-.../msg05287.html

                            So if I understand this right in systemd-devs pov if you wanted to use only udev you have to compile whole systemd at the same time. This would be ok binary distros like ubuntu and tho upstart, but not in source distros like gentoo. If I would want to use only udev with gentoo I don't want to compile something that are not needed, it's just a waste of time and resources of my own computer. And what Hubbs suggested with his patches is to add two configure flags that make possible to compile only udev.
                            That summarizes it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              For what it is worth, Koen tried yesterday to upstream a patch that I wrote to restore support for older kernels, but it was rejected. Kay Sievers wrote a longer email than what I quote here, but here is an abridged version:

                              We generally do not want to work around kernel or libc "bugs". So I'm
                              not interested in such a patch.

                              People who want or need to play these match-and-mix games with "new
                              userspace on old systems" should fix the dependencies where they are
                              missing, not expect "magic" workarounds from tools. There are many
                              subtle dependencies on various things which are not available on old
                              kernels and libc, this is just a very obvious one. We should not
                              pretend we support that model, we just don't. And it will get even
                              harder in the future, as we are trying to build a real OS now not a
                              "bag of bits".
                              http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/007763.html

                              The two projects have orthogonal priorities. eudev favors long term compatibility as a modular component while systemd favors the single tree approach where support for older versions of components is pointless. Both have merits.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ryao View Post
                                For what it is worth, Koen tried yesterday to upstream a patch that I wrote to restore support for older kernels, but it was rejected. Kay Sievers wrote a longer email than what I quote here, but here is an abridged version:
                                http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...er/007763.html
                                To complete the version:
                                We surely will not make anything harder than it needs to be, but
                                pretending bleeding edge tools will or should work on 2 years old
                                kernels is a promise we do not want to make with systemd/udev. In this
                                case, it would be the job of the libc, not the user of libc.

                                We surely support things the other way around, what the kernel is
                                doing, which is new kernels on old systems, but doing it both ways is
                                not really the goal for us.
                                Is that what eudev was all about? Running newer udev on very old kernel release?
                                Last edited by finalzone; 12-18-2012, 04:53 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X