Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

[William Hubbs]

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:38:36PM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> >> On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on
> >>> new
> >>> systems from eudev to udev.
> >>>
> >>> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
> >>> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
> >>> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I
> >>> checked,
> >>> this applies to non-glibc configurations).
> >>>
> >>> What do people think?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> William
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> William,
> >>
> >> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> >> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> >> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> >  
> > Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
> > and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
> > Udev  runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
> > is necessary for most of Gentoo.
>
> It actually works is enough reason for me.  Was forced to migrate a
> bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
> systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
> lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations. 
> Mostly on systems with LVM.
 
I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this
proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites
for eudev, just making it the default for new installs.

> I'm completely against the proposal.
>
> >> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> >> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> >>
> >> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
> >> eudev. What's changed?
> >
> > If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> > need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> > a case for it being the default.
>
> Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.  Might be
> configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
> configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
> commands as simple as "lvs".  eudev in coparison just works.
 
 I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible
 configuration dependence.

When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup?

William

> >
> > Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
> > person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.
>
> Yes, this is a problem.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jaco
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3
> 7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ
> u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa
> Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb
> IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W
> c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY
> G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg==
> =rF5/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>