Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gentoo Announces Eudev Project -- Its Udev Fork

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
    To complete the version:


    Is that what eudev was all about? Running newer udev on very old kernel release?
    It is one of the things that the notion of compatibility covers. Anyway, none of these kernels are particularly old. 2.6.32 is a LTS kernel that is used in RHEL6.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tuke81 View Post
      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's not true though. You don't have to compile all of systemd to get udevd and friends (but unfortunately, you would still need the systemd sources, which includes things you don't need). with a few quick modifications, you can compile them independently; http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Soft.../MinimalBuilds it looks fairly simple to do, create a couple of (empty) .pc files, use PKG_CONFIG_PATH to point to them, then you can compile each component with 'make udevd' (etc).

      anyway, that isn't really the crux of why they are forking from what i gather, just one issue (that sounds like it can already be easily resolved anyway and is already documented).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        that's not true though. You don't have to compile all of systemd to get udevd and friends (but unfortunately, you would still need the systemd sources, which includes things you don't need). with a few quick modifications, you can compile them independently; http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Soft.../MinimalBuilds it looks fairly simple to do, create a couple of (empty) .pc files, use PKG_CONFIG_PATH to point to them, then you can compile each component with 'make udevd' (etc).

        anyway, that isn't really the crux of why they are forking from what i gather, just one issue (that sounds like it can already be easily resolved anyway and is already documented).
        It is true that you can patch the build system to build udev independently, although that is a fragile hack. The Gentoo developers maintaining udev were not willing to maintain that outside of upstream and systemd upstream was not willing to do that. You could consider things from the perspective of what systemd's developers did and what the Gentoo udev maintainers did. Many of us did not like the end result and the only way that both groups (i.e. the existing maintainers and the rest of us) could be happy was for us to fork. Honestly, the existing Gentoo udev maintainers do not like having another udev in the tree, but their unwillingness to patch systemd udev to accommodate what the rest of us wanted necessitated it.

        At this point, we have found plenty of decisions that the systemd developers made that we do not like, so the purpose of the fork has expanded beyond just patching a few things. In particular, we want to improve support for non-GNU userlands and tool chains, enforce peer review on all changes made and provide proper documentation of changes. That is in addition to fixing bugs that involve system configurations that Fedora does not use and making the build system simpler and more flexible. For the record, systemd's developers do not want any of this because their priorities differ from ours and that is okay.
        Last edited by ryao; 12-19-2012, 02:32 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          the systemd crowd there was a promise to keep udev independent enough for others to use it without systemd.

          Comment


          • #35
            Yea, overall it looks like there are good reasons for a fork like that. Both projects are going different ways. I only hope that they will maintain a good relationship with one another to avoid any unnecessary duplicate work.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
              I only hope that they will maintain a good relationship with one another
              lol. You haven't been reading this thread at all, did you. As it stands, the systemd devs are laughing about the eudev devs, treating them like the village idiot. Yes, lots of friendship and good relations.

              Comment


              • #37
                That tends to happen at the start of forks. After a while they get to see the benefits of cooperation, and then everyone wins.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ryao View Post
                  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.
                  I'll take the modularity any day. I never quite understood the massive drive to shave absolutely every ms off boot time. Strangely enough since Arch switched over to systemd the new boot system actually seems slower to me. I've been having problems with systemd hanging and blowing out cpu, etc. It hasnt' been exactly been a smooth transition.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                    I'll take the modularity any day. I never quite understood the massive drive to shave absolutely every ms off boot time. Strangely enough since Arch switched over to systemd the new boot system actually seems slower to me. I've been having problems with systemd hanging and blowing out cpu, etc. It hasnt' been exactly been a smooth transition.
                    Modularity is one thing. Workaround over workaround is another one. Software needs to be rewritten from scratch over period of time to fix architectural problems.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ryao View Post
                      It is true that you can patch the build system to build udev independently, although that is a fragile hack. The Gentoo developers maintaining udev were not willing to maintain that outside of upstream and systemd upstream was not willing to do that. You could consider things from the perspective of what systemd's developers did and what the Gentoo udev maintainers did. Many of us did not like the end result and the only way that both groups (i.e. the existing maintainers and the rest of us) could be happy was for us to fork. Honestly, the existing Gentoo udev maintainers do not like having another udev in the tree, but their unwillingness to patch systemd udev to accommodate what the rest of us wanted necessitated it.
                      Thanks for the clarification ryao I knew it was at least _possible_ to build them separately, although since i use systemd - i never bothered to try / needed to do that. My feeling is that the systemd guys want systemd to be 'the one ring to rule them all', it's just too bad that in some ways they seem to be a little short-sided on why certain people would need udev to be more compatible / independent (of systemd).

                      Originally posted by ryao View Post
                      At this point, we have found plenty of decisions that the systemd developers made that we do not like, so the purpose of the fork has expanded beyond just patching a few things. In particular, we want to improve support for non-GNU userlands and tool chains, enforce peer review on all changes made and provide proper documentation of changes. That is in addition to fixing bugs that involve system configurations that Fedora does not use and making the build system simpler and more flexible. For the record, systemd's developers do not want any of this because their priorities differ from ours and that is okay.
                      this... yes, i had assumed/imagined right from the start that it was likely use cases similar to the one's you've listed above - that ultimately caused the fork. (well, and the systemd maintainers disregard / causing breakage).

                      anyway, best of luck with eudev - i am sure people will find it useful.

                      Originally posted by bnolsen View Post
                      I'll take the modularity any day. I never quite understood the massive drive to shave absolutely every ms off boot time. Strangely enough since Arch switched over to systemd the new boot system actually seems slower to me. I've been having problems with systemd hanging and blowing out cpu, etc. It hasnt' been exactly been a smooth transition.
                      are you still using sysv-compatibility?? - i've heard of that causing issues, in at least some cases. Have you looked into what is screwing you up at boot?? Archwiki has an article on this;

                      https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php...d#Optimization

                      I know someone else whom had initial issues with startup, it turned out to be a very minor thing to fix.

                      Myself, i didn't run into any problems with systemd. When i was using sysv + e4rat - i thought booting was fast (vs. not using e4rat), then i ditched them both for systemd and instantly my boot time was reduced - then i optimized it a bit and shaved off another 2/3 seconds. i'm not overly concerned about boot time - but i don't mind cutting it in half, either
                      Last edited by ninez; 12-20-2012, 04:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by asdx
                        So in other words: Fuck you Lennart and your evil plans.
                        How exactly are his plans of heavily advancing of init and daemon integration evil? Its like saying fuck you to Wayland.

                        The only thing he did was to show where eudev developers were wrong or FUDing.

                        He dropped BSD and kernels that did not provide required for PulseAudio inkernel features to reduce the balance of support and allow faster development by concentrating on Linux.

                        Same is with Systemd.

                        Anyone preventing BSD and co adapting PulseAudio or Systemd? Nobody. He is also not obligated to do this work for them. They are also free to catch up later, directly using already ripe system.

                        Nothing is wrong with eudev either.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by asdx
                          So in other words: Fuck you Lennart and your evil plans.
                          I don't get all this grief Lennart has been getting. What is it that people have against unified, integrated, and sane, management of userspace? init.d has been one of the big ugly warts on the face of Linux. I have no problem with giving initd the boot. (OMG, I made a pun...) Good riddance.

                          This has more to do with poor handling of regressions to do with firmware loading than anything to do with developing udev and systemd in the same tree. Remember that systemd is so heavily dependant on udev, that it was hard to keep support for features between the two synced. Had the regressions not been handled so poorly, I don't think this udev fork business would have a leg to stand on.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by asdx
                            Wayland is a different story, and I have nothing against it.

                            Please explain how this is NOT evil:

                            Originally posted by Lennart Poettering
                            (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you
                            haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop
                            that support entirely.)
                            http://lists.freedesktop.org/archive...st/006066.html

                            They were obviously trying to bring some disadvantage to the many init systems that were using udevd just fine, and trying to force systemd on everyone.

                            I like systemd because it offers some nice features, but I find this act of trying to put others into a disadvantage very disappointing, and I don't tolerate this in FOSS, because FOSS is about choice, it's not about anti-competitive practices like this. Leave those evil practices to companies like Microsoft.

                            I'm glad Gentoo developers decided to fork udev.
                            Systemd and udev are opensource. That alone makes them different with Microsoft.
                            He also said, "he would be happy to drop supporting udev for non-systemd" because "its a dead end". Why should he do that he does not want? Anyone is free to step in, which eudev did.
                            He can have his opinion, just as eudev developers have own opinion. The only stupid thing here is if they clash their opinions and burn own energy.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
                              Systemd and udev are opensource. That alone makes them different with Microsoft.
                              He also said, "he would be happy to drop supporting udev for non-systemd" because "its a dead end". Why should he do that he does not want? Anyone is free to step in, which eudev did.
                              He can have his opinion, just as eudev developers have own opinion. The only stupid thing here is if they clash their opinions and burn own energy.
                              Open source dosn't inclue honorfull acting and courage, I my opionion id woud better to work together with the BSDs guys rather than making more and ore differences between Unix-like systems.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                man, i wish people wouldn't quote asdx ~ everyone knows he just just going to make some FU <insert name> comment in almost any thread. The guy _never_ has anything even remotely interesting/relevant to say, it's just the same old predictable non-sense that comes out of his mouth...

                                ...that is the one downside to adding people to your ignore list ~ the ignore list doesn't tie into people quoting them :\

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X