Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Richard Yao <ryao@g.o>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 04:29:09
Message-Id: 50A86327.5060805@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012) by Greg KH
1 On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
2 > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
3 >> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
4 >>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
5 >>> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
6 >>> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
7 >>> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)
8 >>
9 >> That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email,
10 >> you would see that we had settled on eudev.
11 >
12 > The name change still doesn't make it any less "entertaining" :)
13 >
14 > What does the "e" stand for?
15
16 That is a common question. Someone associated with Canonical suggested
17 that e stand for embedded. Others consider the "eu" prefix to be the
18 greek root for "true". Honestly, we don't care. It is just a name.
19
20 >>> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
21 >>> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
22 >>> accomplished by:
23 >>> - getting patches approved upstream
24 >>> or:
25 >>> - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
26 >>> applying them to each release
27 >>
28 >> The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its
29 >> derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat.
30 >
31 > Wait, really? You want to replace systemd? Then why are you starting
32 > at udev and not systemd?
33 >
34 > What is wrong with systemd that it requires a fork? All other distros
35 > seem to be participating in the development process of systemd quite
36 > well, what is keeping Gentoo developers from also doing the same?
37 >
38 > What are your goals, specifically, in detail.
39
40 Is there any way that the answer to your inquiry would result in a
41 productive conversation where you would not attempt to dictate what we do?
42
43 >>> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
44 >>> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
45 >>> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right? And is
46 >>> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
47 >>> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
48 >>> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
49 >>> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
50 >>
51 >> See the following:
52 >>
53 >> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
54 >
55 > You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency. It's not
56 > inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
57 > of how things work here.
58 >
59 > Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
60 > complex, at all. To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
61 > later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
62 > methodology that I know of.
63
64 I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were
65 introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from
66 which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing
67 with them.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies