1 |
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: |
2 |
> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: |
4 |
> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would |
5 |
> >>> not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork |
6 |
> >>> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing such goals, |
7 |
> >>> there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this. |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the |
10 |
> >> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you, |
11 |
> >> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been |
12 |
> >> well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine |
13 |
> >> that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after |
14 |
> >> our first tag. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > I'll ignore the fact that project goals have nothing to do with |
17 |
> > waterfall or agile, and ask, what are your short-term goals? |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > Why is this an "official" Gentoo project without this being discussed in |
20 |
> > an open manner? |
21 |
> |
22 |
> We are in the process of getting started. If you read my original email, |
23 |
> you would know that the announcement was supposed to occur relatively |
24 |
> soon. The reason I sent it was because the Gentoo Council meeting |
25 |
> required something be sent sooner than we were ready. |
26 |
|
27 |
The "announce later, act first" seems like a new move for the Gentoo |
28 |
Council to be taking. Is this really an official act that the council |
29 |
is approving? |
30 |
|
31 |
Why wait to announce a project that is being hosted on a Gentoo account, |
32 |
with Gentoo Foundation copyrights on them? I don't understand the |
33 |
delay. |
34 |
|
35 |
> >>> Wait, what? The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real |
36 |
> >>> problem. kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had |
37 |
> >>> been seen and found. It was written for the systemd/udev projects to |
38 |
> >>> use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers. |
39 |
> >>> By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to |
40 |
> >>> the old problems we had before. That doesn't seem very wise to me, does |
41 |
> >>> it to you? |
42 |
> >>> |
43 |
> >>> thanks, |
44 |
> >>> |
45 |
> >>> greg k-h |
46 |
> >> |
47 |
> >> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory |
48 |
> >> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional |
49 |
> >> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it |
50 |
> >> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there |
51 |
> >> is no need for this one. |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> > You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right? |
54 |
> |
55 |
> kmod does not exist on my system and eudev builds without a problem. |
56 |
|
57 |
Are you using busybox to load your kernel modules? Are you saying that |
58 |
this is something that will be required here? |
59 |
|
60 |
Or is this change because you want to use busybox to load your modules? |
61 |
If so, why not just use mdev instead of udev at all? That's what mdev |
62 |
was created for, busybox-like systems that don't want the "heavy" udev |
63 |
on them. |
64 |
|
65 |
> I am thinking of writing my own busybox-style code to handle module |
66 |
> loading in the builtin when the configure script is told not to build |
67 |
> with kmod. Does this not avoid the dependency? |
68 |
|
69 |
So we will now have 3 different Linux kernel loaders floating around? |
70 |
What's wrong with using kmod in the first place? What does it do that |
71 |
is so wrong? |
72 |
|
73 |
And again, back to my original point above, you have reintroduced the |
74 |
problem that kmod solved. How is that good? |
75 |
|
76 |
> >> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people continually |
77 |
> >> trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning. |
78 |
> > |
79 |
> > Huh? Really? It's as if you think we all are just throwing stuff |
80 |
> > against the wall and seeing what sticks? We aren't responding to real |
81 |
> > users, customers, research, history, and competitors? Your dismissal of |
82 |
> > the people who create the system you are using seems pretty bold. |
83 |
> |
84 |
> The result of what the existing people have been doing has been the |
85 |
> equivalent of throwing stuff against the wall for many of us. |
86 |
|
87 |
Really? What, specifically, is wrong with the existing systemd solution |
88 |
that you have a problem with? Specifics please, otherwise they can't be |
89 |
fixed. |
90 |
|
91 |
> We have decided to try doing things ourselves to see if we can do |
92 |
> better. We think we can. |
93 |
|
94 |
That's wonderful, seriously. But why is this suddenly an official |
95 |
Gentoo project? When did that happen, and why? Why not just do a |
96 |
"normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to |
97 |
the distro like all other packages are added. |
98 |
|
99 |
My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by |
100 |
Gentoo, the distro / foundation. And that happened in private, without |
101 |
any anouncement. Which is not good on many levels. |
102 |
|
103 |
> > Have you studied the problem area for booting, process monitoring, |
104 |
> > system isolation, device creation and notification, persistant naming, |
105 |
> > multiple users with multiple displays, and the like, and found that |
106 |
> > Linux is lacking in this area? If so, I would love to learn more, as I |
107 |
> > want Linux, and Gentoo, to succeed. Without knowing the problems you |
108 |
> > are having, there's no way anyone will ever change. |
109 |
> |
110 |
> We already have OpenRC, which has been found to work well on both Gentoo |
111 |
> Linux and Gentoo FreeBSD. The integration of udev into systemd has |
112 |
> caused problems for existing OpenRC systems with people being told that |
113 |
> it is okay to break configurations that users had been told to use over |
114 |
> well over a decade. Many of us consider that to be unacceptable. |
115 |
|
116 |
Part of the goal of systemd is to unify all Linux distros startup logic, |
117 |
and configuration logic, to make things unified to help a whole lot of |
118 |
things happen better and faster in the end. It is a move to save |
119 |
effort, and, is succeeding quite well. If Gentoo does not wish to |
120 |
participate in this effort, then those of us who are participating in |
121 |
it, and are Gentoo developers, should be told this so that we can decide |
122 |
what we wish to do. |
123 |
|
124 |
OpenRC is great, and has worked well for 10+ years. But seriously, it |
125 |
is creaky in places, and doesn't do much at all compared to what systemd |
126 |
offers. If Gentoo wants to ignore systemd, it does so at its own peril. |
127 |
|
128 |
Oh, and systemd has nothing to do with the /usr issue, don't ever get |
129 |
that confused. A separate /usr broke a long time ago, systemd just now |
130 |
shows you how broken your system really was, and you didn't notice it :) |
131 |
|
132 |
> Anyway, results are what are important. If you are interested in what we |
133 |
> are doing, then I suggest coming back in a month to see what we have |
134 |
> produced. |
135 |
|
136 |
Why a month? Where did that deadline come from? |
137 |
|
138 |
And again, the main question that has never been answered yet, "What are |
139 |
you trying to do here?" |
140 |
|
141 |
thanks, |
142 |
|
143 |
greg k-h |