1 |
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Dec 26, 2012 1:05 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> {supersnip} |
6 |
|
7 |
> Canek, I distinctly remember, at the very beginning of this brouhaha over |
8 |
> udev requiring /usr to be mounted at boot time, you stated something along |
9 |
> the lines of 'show me the code, then I'll believe that replacing udev is |
10 |
> doable'. |
11 |
|
12 |
Yeah, and like I said, check the commits in eudev. They haven't done |
13 |
nothing but to remove code and a very rational (IMO) dependency, kmod. |
14 |
|
15 |
> First, Walter Dnes came out with an amazingly complete -- considering it was |
16 |
> all done by just one man -- solution using mdev. You scoffed at him, saying |
17 |
> that mdev solution is incomplete. |
18 |
|
19 |
I'm sorry if sounded like scoffing (certainly I don't remember |
20 |
scoffing anyone, at least consciously). I remember I praised Walt for |
21 |
doing the work for mdev. Do you remember that? I can dig the archives, |
22 |
but I'm pretty sure I said that I greatly admired him. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Now, some respected Gentoo devs forked udev into eudev, and produced a |
25 |
> working solution, yet you still scoff at them. |
26 |
|
27 |
I'm not the one doing the scoffing; those where Greg and Diego. And |
28 |
sorry, but I really trust those guys. |
29 |
|
30 |
> In your eyes, udev has become like the cosmos: everything there is, and ever |
31 |
> shall be. |
32 |
|
33 |
No, of course no. Hell, I hope something even better will be developed |
34 |
along the way. And I said at some point (to Greg, in the -dev list) |
35 |
that *perhaps* something good will come from eudev. I hope you |
36 |
remember, but (again) I can search the archives. |
37 |
|
38 |
> Greg KH and Diego Petteno are similar; they ridiculed a good forking by |
39 |
> spreading FUD, and almost totally unwilling to listen to rational arguments |
40 |
> from the devs about why udev is forked. As a result, they received great |
41 |
> opposition, in turn. Even Linus piped up at one point, sharply reminding |
42 |
> Greg KH that even though udev was at one time Greg's 'baby', at this point |
43 |
> udev serves only the wants of the few. |
44 |
|
45 |
I really think that's the crux of the matter Pandou: udev/systemd |
46 |
serves to the wants of the many. The eudev fork serves to the wants of |
47 |
a very few which really don't want an initramfs, when it has a lot of |
48 |
technical advantages. It has some problems, of course, but we can |
49 |
solve those, and solve the problem *in the general case*. Which is the |
50 |
one that it's important ant interesting. |
51 |
|
52 |
In my humble opinion (apparently, if I don't say that, it sounds like |
53 |
it's impossible for me to be wrong). |
54 |
|
55 |
> I'd say that you, Greg KH, and others denigrating eudev are udev fanatics, |
56 |
> preferring to denigrate anything outside the 'party lines' of udev+systemd. |
57 |
|
58 |
What about Diego? He doesn't like systemd. |
59 |
|
60 |
Pandou, the "party lines" and the "thought police" is the other way |
61 |
around in this list. You don't seem to remember my praises to Walt or |
62 |
my wishing luck to the eudev fork (which, BTW, Greg also did). The few |
63 |
of us who *dare* to praise udev/systemd get an incredible amount of |
64 |
crap for it. We are nothing but fanbois or, in your words, "udev has |
65 |
become like the cosmos: everything there is, and ever shall be." |
66 |
Really? I didn't knew that. |
67 |
|
68 |
Maybe we are doing it wrong. But as far as i can see, we are only |
69 |
expressing our opinion on technical grounds. We are not calling names |
70 |
nor doubting their technical backgrounds, nor telling people what they |
71 |
should or should not use. |
72 |
|
73 |
It's the other way around. |
74 |
-- |
75 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
76 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
77 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |