1 |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:58:51 +0100 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 |
5 |
> Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> |
8 |
> > > wrote: |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 |
11 |
> > > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: |
14 |
> > >>>>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything |
15 |
> > >>>>> using kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init |
16 |
> > >>>>> system} will have to do the same thing anyway. But again, |
17 |
> > >>>>> almost 2 years is extremely old considering all the flux that |
18 |
> > >>>>> has been around kbus. |
19 |
> > >>>> |
20 |
> > >>>> OpenRC itself can for now just ignore kdbus, bus1, or whatever |
21 |
> > >>>> kernel IPC system comes next. |
22 |
> > >>> |
23 |
> > >>> Well, as Lennart wrote it, kbus would have needed some |
24 |
> > >>> initialisation. Just like we have a dbus init script, openrc |
25 |
> > >>> would have a kdbus one. |
26 |
> > >>>> But if upstream udev makes use of the systemd |
27 |
> > >>>> userspace interface to the kernel IPC system, then OpenRC |
28 |
> > >>>> would have to implement the same interface in order to have |
29 |
> > >>>> working udev. |
30 |
> > >>> |
31 |
> > >>> As I understand it, a kernel IPC doesn't need systemd to work. |
32 |
> > >>> udev might use wrappers from libsystemd, or libbus1, just like |
33 |
> > >>> we have programs using libv4l or libbluetooth currently. |
34 |
> > >> |
35 |
> > >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run |
36 |
> > >> udev together with systemd, and if you don't want to do that |
37 |
> > >> (spelling as in original): |
38 |
> > >> |
39 |
> > >> "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see |
40 |
> > >> three options: a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate |
41 |
> > >> systemd that much, but love udev so much, then implement an |
42 |
> > >> alternative userspace for kdbus to do |
43 |
> > >> initialiuzation/policy/activation." |
44 |
> > >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html |
45 |
> > >> |
46 |
> > >> So it seems a bit more than only initialization is needed. |
47 |
> > > |
48 |
> > > You're missing the third option which is a sane option, and jump |
49 |
> > > straight to pitchforks. |
50 |
> > > |
51 |
> > > As I see it, *if* this becomes a necessity, we're quite like are |
52 |
> > > going to provide KDBUS parts of systemd the way we provide udev |
53 |
> > > parts right now. After all, libsystemd-bus will be useful to more |
54 |
> > > applications. |
55 |
> > > |
56 |
> > > Of course, someone may want to fork that into libebus just for |
57 |
> > > the sake of renaming. |
58 |
> > > |
59 |
> > > And after all, as it has already been noted, there are people |
60 |
> > > interested in maintaining non-systemd userspace for KDBUS. Which |
61 |
> > > is kinda the obvious choice, unlike forking something. |
62 |
> > |
63 |
> > kdbus is dead. It is fatally flawed and Greg is no longer trying to |
64 |
> > get it merged as he is not updating his branch for newer kernel |
65 |
> > versions. If I recall correctly, kdbus was also removed from Fedora |
66 |
> > and has no distribution backing it anymore. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Then... why are we even discussing this? |
69 |
> |
70 |
|
71 |
because s/kdbus/bus1/ |