1 |
Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:06:29 +0800 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> For now udev is still usable without systemd, even tho upstream is |
4 |
> making it difficult to build udev separately (and avoid unnecessary |
5 |
> build-time dependencies). Upstream is also unwilling to work with us to |
6 |
> make this easier. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Despite upstream promises that udev will remain usable stand-alone, |
9 |
> there is a lot of skepticism towards that. So we may find ourselves |
10 |
> faced with the need to use a fork or a replacement for udev. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Right now the situation is in flux, so we are basically waiting to see |
13 |
> how things will develop. |
14 |
|
15 |
Yours and Luca's summaries LGTM. Two comments/observations and one |
16 |
question, tho. Question first, at the top: |
17 |
|
18 |
Question: |
19 |
|
20 |
For those who have actually built it, what *IS* the full systemd relative |
21 |
merge-time, and how does that compare to that of pre-merge udev? |
22 |
|
23 |
I doubt that most people consider udev's stand-alone build-time a big |
24 |
issue. It's not like a gcc update, or firefox, or the classic example, |
25 |
OOo/LO. Building/installing udev has always been relatively trivial. |
26 |
|
27 |
Just how much worse are we talking if we DO end up having to build nearly |
28 |
all of systemd, only to throw out most of it, just keeping udev? If it's |
29 |
just 50% more than udev by itself, or even double, while having to build |
30 |
all of systemd just to throw out most of it is irksum in principle, in |
31 |
practice, for most, it wouldn't be a big deal. (Yes, there's the |
32 |
underpowered minor archs where it would be, but even there, |
33 |
relatively...) Ten times the build/install time, however, and it's |
34 |
rather more of an issue. 20 or 50 times, and it's a much *BIGGGER* issue. |
35 |
|
36 |
So in practice, just what are the sorts of times, relative to stand-alone- |
37 |
build udev, we're talking about? In all this discussion, what, hundreds |
38 |
of posts by now?, I've not seen ANYONE actually ask, let alone answer, |
39 |
THAT. But it would seem to be a rather important question... |
40 |
|
41 |
Comments/observations (mostly rehash for those who read the other thread, |
42 |
feel free to skip to the next post): |
43 |
|
44 |
1) On gentoo, "usable standalone" by definition means reasonably |
45 |
buildable, standalone, ideally without going to extreme lengths via |
46 |
complex and exotic ebuild/eclasses to do it. That's rather different |
47 |
than upstream's definition of "usable standalone", which they did |
48 |
promise, but which to them simply means the already built binary (as |
49 |
found in systemd-based distros for use in their initr*s before switching |
50 |
to real-root, where systemd is found, that being the specific example |
51 |
they gave) will continue to function on its own -- they have in fact |
52 |
specifically stated that they have absolutely NO interest in keeping it / |
53 |
buildable/ stand-alone, or in cooperation with distros like gentoo who |
54 |
find that IS in their interest. |
55 |
|
56 |
Given that difference in definition for "usable standalone", it's with |
57 |
good reason that gentooers generally view that upstream claim with |
58 |
extreme skepticism. |
59 |
|
60 |
2) But my primary point in an earlier thread on the topic still stands. |
61 |
Gentoo's current udev/openrc default simply can't and won't be changed on |
62 |
a dime. Even if gentoo chose to do it today and the project was given |
63 |
extreme priority, we're looking at at LEAST a year, more like two. And |
64 |
by 2-3 years out, if Linux/FLOSS history is any guide, the whole |
65 |
ecosystem will look different, and we'll have a whole list of new changes |
66 |
and challenges to worry about, so somewhere between 3-5 years out, the |
67 |
picture simply gets way too fuzzy to predict any more, and throwing the |
68 |
dice has about as good a chance. So with no plans to immediately change |
69 |
gentoo's position, it's a pretty safe bet that any changes of that size |
70 |
that WOULD occur are safely out beyond that three-year horizon where |
71 |
things start getting fuzzy, and beyond that, it's anyone's guess. |
72 |
|
73 |
-- |
74 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
75 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
76 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |