| 1 |
On 9/26/2014 1:04 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 25/09/14 22:03, James wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'd be better of with a fresh install of lilblue + musl + eudev |
| 4 |
>> is what you are really saying here? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> that's the only usecase for eudev currently, yes, otherwise you have no |
| 7 |
> reason to switch |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Hi Samuli, |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
So, is the above still true? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
eudev is looking more attractive every day... but can it continue to |
| 14 |
work and be supported if Lennart gets his way and upstream udev stops |
| 15 |
working without systemd? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Just saw reference to the following thread on the debian-user list, and |
| 18 |
it includes a couple of responses from you (and an insult hurled at you |
| 19 |
from Lennart)... and I'm a bit worried that gentoo will be forced to |
| 20 |
swallow the systemd koolaid sometime maybe even sooner rather than later |
| 21 |
if Lennart succeeds in making udev work only with systemd, as he makes |
| 22 |
clear his desire to do just that here: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Notably: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Lennart said: |
| 29 |
>>> Also note that at that point we intend to move udev onto kdbus |
| 30 |
>>> as transport, and get rid of the userspace-to-userspace |
| 31 |
>>> netlink-based tranport udev used so far. Unless the |
| 32 |
>>> systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until then this |
| 33 |
>>> will effectively also mean that we will not support non-systemd |
| 34 |
>>> systems with udev anymore starting at that point. Gentoo folks, |
| 35 |
>>> this is your wakeup call. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Samuli replied: |
| 38 |
>> I've already set minimum kernel required to 2.6.39 in >= 213, and |
| 39 |
>> I'd be fine setting it even higher. Talking only of the udev bit |
| 40 |
>> here. I don't like dropping support for old versions, but if that's |
| 41 |
>> what has to be done, I'll go with that. Please, don't use this as |
| 42 |
>> an excuse to drop support for MinimalBuilds as described in wiki in |
| 43 |
>> some manner. As in, if it's still possible to use some kernel, like |
| 44 |
>> kernel with kdbus, and even if it requires an userspace library |
| 45 |
>> like 'libsystemd-something' to go with it, and still get a udev one |
| 46 |
>> way or another, that can run standalone, we are all good. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Lennart responded: |
| 49 |
> You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and |
| 50 |
> handle activation. That's not a trivial task. For us, that's what |
| 51 |
> sytemd does in PID 1. You'd need to come up with an alternative for |
| 52 |
> that. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Samuli said: |
| 55 |
>> I'd really hate to be forced to fork (or carry huge patchset) |
| 56 |
>> unnecessarily (I'm not a systemd hater, I'm not a eudev lover, I'm |
| 57 |
>> simply working on what is provided to me by *you*, udev upstream) |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Lennart replied: |
| 60 |
> Oh god. You know, if you come me like this as blame me that I would |
| 61 |
> "force" you to do something, then you just piss me off and make me |
| 62 |
> ignore you. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> Anyway, as soon as kdbus is merged this i how we will maintain udev, |
| 65 |
> you have ample time to figure out some solution that works for you, |
| 66 |
> but we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three |
| 67 |
> options: a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate systemd |
| 68 |
> that much, but love udev so much, then implement an alternative |
| 69 |
> userspace for kdbus to do initialiuzation/policy/activation. |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> Also note that this will not be a change that is just internal |
| 72 |
> between udev and libudev. We expect that clients will soonishly just |
| 73 |
> start doing normal bus calls to the new udev, like they'd do them to |
| 74 |
> any other system service instead of using libudev. |
Archives