1 |
On Thursday, September 15, 2011 01:43:17 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> |
3 |
wrote: |
4 |
> (This mail is to keep the guys un -user in the loop about -devel). |
5 |
> |
6 |
> OK, so Joost posted his proposal to -dev: |
7 |
|
8 |
<snipped brief discussion on gentoo-dev> |
9 |
|
10 |
The thread on gentoo-dev is not yet finished and I intend to try to get some |
11 |
more information. As I mentioned in my other email. |
12 |
|
13 |
> I would also like to point you guys to this article in LWN.net: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/458789/3ae00c9827889929/ |
16 |
> |
17 |
> The article (the second part about systemd) closes with: |
18 |
> |
19 |
> “The overall picture was of a project that is on a roll, gaining |
20 |
> features and users at a fast rate. The Systemd view of the world has |
21 |
> not yet won over everybody, but the opposition seems to be fading. |
22 |
> Systemd looks like the init system of the future (and more) for a lot |
23 |
> of high-profile distributions.” |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The article was written by Jonathan Corbet, editor of LWN and (I think |
26 |
> most people would agree with me) someone who has always tried to be |
27 |
> objective and impartial. |
28 |
|
29 |
I'll read this later (probably tomorrow) and get back to you on this if |
30 |
necessary. |
31 |
|
32 |
> So, if Joost and others are willing and able to implement the |
33 |
> necessary bits to avoid the need for an initramfs, I salute them and |
34 |
> wish them luck. But the most probable outcome is this: |
35 |
> |
36 |
> * The fork/replacement will take years of man-effort: design, |
37 |
> implementation, debug, documentation, mainteinance. |
38 |
> * At the same time, the dev-approved solution of a minimal initramfs |
39 |
> or a dracut/genkernel generated one will be available and working. |
40 |
> * If the forking/replacement team manages to create a workable |
41 |
> fork/replacement, it will have to sell it to the Gentoo devs, and if |
42 |
> the initramfs solution is working properly the most rational answer |
43 |
> will be "no, thank you". |
44 |
|
45 |
The time needed for this is not certain as we are planning on basing it on the |
46 |
current udev and see what is possible. |
47 |
If the Gentoo-devs come up with a fool-proof solution, which is one of the |
48 |
possible outcomes I am trying to get to in the gentoo-dev thread, I will be |
49 |
happy there as well. |
50 |
|
51 |
As for the udev-fork to ever becoming mainstream, I can't say. It might not |
52 |
even work the way we are hoping. Only time will tell. |
53 |
|
54 |
> I'm sorry if my analysis bother some people, but it's basically what |
55 |
> I've been saying from the beginning. I'm glad Joost asked the |
56 |
> developers for their input. I think it clears the air about a lot of |
57 |
> things. |
58 |
|
59 |
I have no problem with your analysis and yes, the initial response from Zac |
60 |
was what you've been saying. |
61 |
I am hoping to get more information on this and I will have no problem if you |
62 |
keep reporting it back here. |
63 |
|
64 |
One of the reasons I asked it on Gentoo-dev is simply because I agree with |
65 |
some people here that this thread was starting to go in circles and no new |
66 |
information was being added. |
67 |
|
68 |
-- |
69 |
Joost |