1 |
Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:33:04 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> [Udev-systemd has] essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs |
4 |
> from non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX. |
5 |
|
6 |
Agreed, to this point. |
7 |
|
8 |
> Actually, for political reasons, I hope that eudev does submit a bunch |
9 |
> bugs+patches, and gets them rejected. Then whenever anyone complains |
10 |
> about not sharing code, show them a bunch of WONTFIX emails from |
11 |
> systemd/udev maintainers. |
12 |
|
13 |
This attitude is and the described events would be... unfortunate. |
14 |
|
15 |
For the reasons you list, I don't believe people should be /surprised/ if |
16 |
many such bugs+patches are rejected after submission, but that wouldn't |
17 |
make it any less unfortunate, and IMO, hoping they DO get rejected is the |
18 |
wrong attitude to have. |
19 |
|
20 |
The best possible outcome, IMO, would be that the eudev (and any other |
21 |
udev replacement projects) eventually work themselves out of a job. |
22 |
Ideally, the very existence of these projects will trigger a rethink on |
23 |
the part of the udev folks, causing the reasons for the fork to disappear |
24 |
over time. Ideally, with effort and compromise on NIH and similar |
25 |
attitudes on /both/ sides, differences can be put aside and udev (whether |
26 |
it remains developed under the systemd umbrella or not) can once again be |
27 |
the unifying influence its authors claim to intend. |
28 |
|
29 |
To some extent the hubbub has already appeared to trigger incremental |
30 |
walkbacks and/or the exploration of third ways. The kernel's recent |
31 |
addition of its own module loading code, endorsed by the udev folks, is |
32 |
one such third way development. Perhaps I'm reading my own viewpoint |
33 |
into things, but it seems from here anyway, that the systemd-udev side |
34 |
rhetoric on initr*-less support for a separate /usr is... less |
35 |
strident... than it was. And kmod was initially required by new udev, |
36 |
but is now optional. I'd call all of these good developments... that may |
37 |
well have never occurred had pushback including but not limited to the |
38 |
eudev project hadn't occurred. |
39 |
|
40 |
Ideally, then, the need for eudev as an actually installed systemd-udev |
41 |
alternative will disappear even as eudev is being born. However, that's |
42 |
no argument yet for termination of the project and in fact is arguably |
43 |
the reverse, given systemd and now udev's history of ignoring feedback |
44 |
from those it's riding roughshod over, as long as people continue to LET |
45 |
it ride roughshod over them. The existence of the eudev project, |
46 |
therefore, may continue to be necessary, if only to provide a practical |
47 |
udev alternative such that udev itself moderates to the point that the |
48 |
alternative need not be actually used on a system. |
49 |
|
50 |
But at least there's an alternative now, so that regardless of whether |
51 |
systemd-udev moderates or not, people aren't left without recourse. |
52 |
Hopefully that moderation occurs and the alternatives can ultimately be |
53 |
merged back in, but there's recourse now, so people are no longer |
54 |
actually dependent on udev-systemd's moderation. |
55 |
|
56 |
Which way that takes both udev-systemd and eudev remains to be seen, but |
57 |
I'd /still/ consider it /unfortunate/ if those bugs+patches do appear and |
58 |
get WONTFIXed, thus, certainly I hope they appear, but just as certainly, |
59 |
one can HOPE they get resolved/merged, *NOT* resolved/WONTFIXed. |
60 |
|
61 |
Time will tell. |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
65 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
66 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |