Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Fwd: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 03:46:13
Message-Id: CAA2qdGWoEhFka4764O3oPiJZ2vSLcAU5jriY-aS1QhehBps+oA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Fwd: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization by Walter Dnes
1 On Nov 14, 2012 10:02 AM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
4 > >
5 > > Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev. Yeppie !! Me,
6 > > I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run
7 > > when it gets ready. Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.
8 >
9 > Might even get me to come back to udev. I wonder which group will be
10 > setting the specs as far as "the official udev" is concerned. The
11 > Gentoo devs should seek support from other distros and Linus himself.
12 > If we merely make a fork, and the systemd people still have the
13 > "official version", we'll be doomed to slavishly follow them in "bug
14 > compatability" mode. What happens if/when Lennart gets his way?
15 >
16 http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
17 >
18 > > And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration
19 > > into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
20 > >
21 > > (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case
22 > > you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we
23 > > can drop that support entirely.)
24 >
25 > And that's probably not the only thing that the systemd people could
26 > do to jerk us around. A successful fork would need to be one that
27 > hardware companies release drivers for, and that GNOME/KDE will support.
28 >
29 > I still think that the fork team should look at where mdev doesn't
30 > match udev, and write shims to add the missing functionality. The
31 > busybox people obviously don't want to bloat their minimal version. But
32 > it already does most of what is needed, so some shims to add missing
33 > functionality there would be less effort than an entire udev fork.
34 >
35 > > I wonder what they will name it tho.
36 >
37 > Howsabout calling it "Woodstock"? We could even have our own cheer
38 >
39 > Gimmee an EFF
40 >
41 > EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
42 >
43 > Gimmee an OOO
44 >
45 > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
46 >
47 > Gimmee an ARR
48 >
49 > ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
50 >
51 > Gimmee a KAY
52 >
53 > KAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
54 >
55 > What's that spell?
56 >
57 > FORK!
58 >
59 > What's that spell?
60 >
61 > FORK!
62 >
63 > What's that spell?
64 >
65 > FORK!
66 >
67 > Now all we need is a quarter of a million people screaming in unison.
68 >
69
70 LOL
71
72 Now seriously:
73
74 You should follow the discussion in -project. Someone (I forgot who
75 exactly) has made a personal commitment to within a month produce a
76 serviceable udev fork, at least a Proof of Concept. And IIRC, hwoarang is
77 going to 'test the waters' with Debian people.
78
79 So, this is not a pipe dream. It's happening, code will be produced, ...
80 and I bet some people will get offended ;-)
81
82 Rgds,
83 --

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Fwd: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>