| 1 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 |
| 2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Alexis Ballier schrieb: |
| 5 |
> > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require |
| 6 |
> > systemd. Quoting Lennart: |
| 7 |
> > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and handle |
| 8 |
> > activation. That's not a trivial task. For us, that's what sytemd does |
| 9 |
> > in PID 1. You'd need to come up with an alternative for that." |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using |
| 12 |
> > kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have to |
| 13 |
> > do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely |
| 14 |
> > old considering all the flux that has been around kbus. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> OpenRC itself can for now just ignore kdbus, bus1, or whatever kernel |
| 17 |
> IPC system comes next. But if upstream udev makes use of the systemd |
| 18 |
> userspace interface to the kernel IPC system, then OpenRC would have to |
| 19 |
> implement the same interface in order to have working udev. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Also given the close relationship between systemd and udev, there is no |
| 22 |
> guarantee that supporting other users of kdbus/bus1 will make udev |
| 23 |
> automagically work. As these two are released together, there is no |
| 24 |
> reason to have a stable, public API between them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by |
| 27 |
systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they |
| 28 |
made around here. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
So, yes, we should definitely switch to semi-maintained, |
| 31 |
semi-documented fork made plainly of systemd hate. Because certainly |
| 32 |
project that is created plainly for political reasons is better. |
| 33 |
Because it will certainly be technically better if people have to focus |
| 34 |
on copying regular udev maintainers and reworking their changes to keep |
| 35 |
them working on forked codebase. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
And after all, as someone said, this will give eudev proper testing. |
| 38 |
Because why default to something tested and working when you can throw |
| 39 |
your random fork on our users. After all, if we force them to use it, |
| 40 |
they will eventually start co-maintaining it, and it will no longer be |
| 41 |
semi-maintained! |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Best regards, |
| 45 |
Michał Górny |
| 46 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives