1 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 |
2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Alexis Ballier schrieb: |
5 |
> >>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using |
6 |
> >>> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have |
7 |
> >>> to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely |
8 |
> >>> old considering all the flux that has been around kbus. |
9 |
> >> |
10 |
> >> OpenRC itself can for now just ignore kdbus, bus1, or whatever kernel |
11 |
> >> IPC system comes next. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Well, as Lennart wrote it, kbus would have needed some initialisation. |
14 |
> > Just like we have a dbus init script, openrc would have a kdbus one. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> >> But if upstream udev makes use of the systemd |
17 |
> >> userspace interface to the kernel IPC system, then OpenRC would have |
18 |
> >> to implement the same interface in order to have working udev. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > As I understand it, a kernel IPC doesn't need systemd to work. udev |
21 |
> > might use wrappers from libsystemd, or libbus1, just like we have |
22 |
> > programs using libv4l or libbluetooth currently. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together |
25 |
> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): |
26 |
> |
27 |
> "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options: |
28 |
> a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate systemd that much, but |
29 |
> love udev so much, then implement an alternative userspace for kdbus to |
30 |
> do initialiuzation/policy/activation." |
31 |
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html |
32 |
> |
33 |
> So it seems a bit more than only initialization is needed. |
34 |
|
35 |
You're missing the third option which is a sane option, and jump |
36 |
straight to pitchforks. |
37 |
|
38 |
As I see it, *if* this becomes a necessity, we're quite like are going |
39 |
to provide KDBUS parts of systemd the way we provide udev parts right |
40 |
now. After all, libsystemd-bus will be useful to more applications. |
41 |
|
42 |
Of course, someone may want to fork that into libebus just for the sake |
43 |
of renaming. |
44 |
|
45 |
And after all, as it has already been noted, there are people |
46 |
interested in maintaining non-systemd userspace for KDBUS. Which is |
47 |
kinda the obvious choice, unlike forking something. |
48 |
|
49 |
> >> Also given the close relationship between systemd and udev, there is |
50 |
> >> no guarantee that supporting other users of kdbus/bus1 will make udev |
51 |
> >> automagically work. As these two are released together, there is no |
52 |
> >> reason to have a stable, public API between them. |
53 |
> > |
54 |
> > Yes, which would mean systemd requires matching udev, not the other way |
55 |
> > around. I'm a bit clueless here: Do you have any pointers on the recent |
56 |
> > trends on this side ? |
57 |
> |
58 |
> I have only upstream's statements from 2014. They talk about a kdbus |
59 |
> userspace that systemd will provide to udev, which will be necessary for udev |
60 |
> to function. |
61 |
> If and when upstream comes forward with statements about whether udev will |
62 |
> only use public and stable API, these concerns could be either dispelled or |
63 |
> confirmed. |
64 |
|
65 |
And here you have my statement, from today: |
66 |
|
67 |
I declare that eudev will be discontinued. You should either move to |
68 |
systemd, to alternative device manager or fork it. This is your last |
69 |
call, Gentoo users! |
70 |
|
71 |
Now please copy it to slashdot, reddit or whatever cool kids use these |
72 |
days, and make sure to request at least half of existing eudev users |
73 |
switch to something else because of the above statement. |
74 |
|
75 |
Does it matter that I haven't contributed a single line to eudev code? |
76 |
eudev upstream is Gentoo, and I'm a Gentoo developer. So I'm part of |
77 |
upstream. Even if I don't touch eudev, I'm part of the upstream. |
78 |
In fact, I think I even have commit access there! |
79 |
|
80 |
If Lennart's single statement from 2014 is a reason to use eudev |
81 |
instead of systemd-udevd, my statement from today is a more important |
82 |
reason not to use eudev. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
Best regards, |
86 |
Michał Górny |
87 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |