1 |
On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile |
3 |
<blueness@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work |
6 |
>> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've |
9 |
>> spoken with the various distros --- slack, parted magic, puppy. they |
10 |
>> get what's going on and they still see eudev is the best way forward |
11 |
>> for now. it may not be in the future, but neither will a udev |
12 |
>> extracted from a compiled full systemd codebase. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Look, I get it, some people don't like systemd. That's fine. |
17 |
> However, you have to realize at this point that a non-systemd |
18 |
> configuration is anything but mainstream. There will always be a |
19 |
> "poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux |
20 |
> without sysfs or some other obscure practice. I just think that |
21 |
> Gentoo should offer the choice to do those things, but have a more |
22 |
> mainstream set of defaults. |
23 |
|
24 |
The new mainstream is docker. Docker recently switched to Alpine Linux, |
25 |
which uses OpenRC+eudev: |
26 |
|
27 |
https://www.brianchristner.io/docker-is-moving-to-alpine-linux/ |
28 |
|
29 |
That dwarfs whatever marketshare systemd has in the same way that |
30 |
Android+iOS dwarfed whatever marketshare Windows has. |
31 |
|
32 |
If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the |
33 |
logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what |
34 |
the Linux ecosystem will be using going forward. |
35 |
|
36 |
I do not think userbase should be the sole means by which we make |
37 |
decisions, but those that think otherwise should now join the |
38 |
eudev+OpenRC camp. It has the bigger userbase share going forward. |
39 |
|
40 |
To put it another way, the war is over. Welcome abroad. :) |
41 |
|
42 |
>> |
43 |
>> it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system. imo a |
44 |
>> stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel. |
45 |
>> |
46 |
> |
47 |
> Sure, a stage4 based on systemd makes a lot of sense. I don't really |
48 |
> see the point in leaving a kernel out though - I'd even stick a |
49 |
> precompiled one in /boot on top of having the sources installed. Why |
50 |
> not make a stage4 install something that takes all of 5 minutes? |
51 |
> |
52 |
> I think that offering an eudev-based distro as a default just doesn't |
53 |
> make sense in 2016. I just think the better road to take is to start |
54 |
> treating virtual/udev as something that gets installed post-stage3. |
55 |
> We can't even get people to agree on vi vs emacs as a default. |
56 |
|
57 |
We can leave virtual/udev out of stage3, but that doesn't diminish the |
58 |
need to select sensible default for the virtual/udev provider. |