Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

[Michał Górny]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500
Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote:

> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100
> > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> >>>>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using
> >>>>> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have
> >>>>> to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely
> >>>>> old considering all the flux that has been around kbus.
> >>>>
> >>>> OpenRC itself can for now just ignore kdbus, bus1, or whatever kernel
> >>>> IPC system comes next.
> >>>
> >>> Well, as Lennart wrote it, kbus would have needed some initialisation.
> >>> Just like we have a dbus init script, openrc would have a kdbus one.
> >>>
> >>>> But if upstream udev makes use of the systemd
> >>>> userspace interface to the kernel IPC system, then OpenRC would have
> >>>> to implement the same interface in order to have working udev.
> >>>
> >>> As I understand it, a kernel IPC doesn't need systemd to work. udev
> >>> might use wrappers from libsystemd, or libbus1, just like we have
> >>> programs using libv4l or libbluetooth currently.
> >>
> >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together
> >> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original):
> >>
> >> "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options:
> >> a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate systemd that much, but
> >> love udev so much, then implement an alternative userspace for kdbus to
> >> do initialiuzation/policy/activation."
> >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html
> >>
> >> So it seems a bit more than only initialization is needed.
> >
> > You're missing the third option which is a sane option, and jump
> > straight to pitchforks.
> >
> > As I see it, *if* this becomes a necessity, we're quite like are going
> > to provide KDBUS parts of systemd the way we provide udev parts right
> > now. After all, libsystemd-bus will be useful to more applications.
> >
> > Of course, someone may want to fork that into libebus just for the sake
> > of renaming.
> >
> > And after all, as it has already been noted, there are people
> > interested in maintaining non-systemd userspace for KDBUS. Which is
> > kinda the obvious choice, unlike forking something.
>
> kdbus is dead. It is fatally flawed and Greg is no longer trying to get it merged as he is not updating his branch for newer kernel versions. If I recall correctly, kdbus was also removed from Fedora and has no distribution backing it anymore.

Then... why are we even discussing this?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>