Hi Jude, One thing that matters most (for me), is that you're here, working on this, with Devuan team. This is very important!
Also, when talking about eudev, we have this: q: plans when udev becomes systemd-only ? (after kdbus merge): https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/95 I can see why ("the reasons / motivation") the distros all over the globe, are being forced to use systemd / dbus (on servers!!), and udev is one of those (biggest) reasons... Otherwise, if we have a high quality udev replacement, then, who cares about systemd? With a drop-in replacement for udev, we can easily kick systemd! I know that there are that logind thing, the gnome drama and etc but, first things first. :-P >From what I'm seeing, eudev might hit a dead-end, sooner or later, making it harder and harder to build a systemd-free Linux distro. I mean, when system-udev enforces systemd=PID1, then, sysvinit-core|upstart will be dead. Right?! Unless, eudev start walking on its own path (Feasible? Viable?)... So, vdev (and the proposed alternatives, including plain static /dev), seems the way to go in the long run, for a systemd-free Linux distribution. The question that remains: which path is a "way to go"?! 1- build a new "udev", lets say, vdev? or; 2- stick with eudev and, "after kdbus got merged" (when systemd-udev becomes useless without systemd = PID1), eudev will follow its own path, forever... If we stick with "2", then, I think that it worth putting huge efforts into eudev, to make it a high quality piece of software. Including a big crowdfunding campaign everywhere! Of course, if desirable. Nevertheless, I'm must confess, I'm still divided... All of this work, isn't a waste of time and effort? I mean, systemd seems to be making the life easier for a lot of projects! Even Enlightenment devs (I'm there on e-devel list) are talking about the huge benefits of systemd, that it will make E-Development easier, for example, when using it with Wayland/DRM, also, `enlightenment_start` binary will not be required anymore (when with systemd), less code for E team to maintain, and etc... :-) :-/ :-) +_+ So, are we going to succeed (yes, we can do this)? Or this is a waste? Lets not lie to ourselves... I know we can build a systemd-free distro, I know that... But, honestly, I like the ideas behind systemd (new VT code (consoled), native multiseat support, CGroup Process that can not "scape" systemd) but, its implementation / architecture creeps the heel outta me! Also, the attitudes of systemd developers makes me sick. They have no "social skills" and a terrible bug handling. And I don't like to be forced to use this, or that. Choice is always important, but too many choices are also a bad thing. Cheers! Thiago On 30 December 2014 at 01:45, Jude Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi TJ, > > I totally agree. I'm creating vdev to be a replacement for udev in the > long term, but it will need a *lot* of testing before I'm comfortable > recommending it as the default device manager in *any* distribution. > > That said, I hope to have an alpha package in a few days. It will be able > to run side-by-side with udev/eudev/mdev/static dev. > > Jude > On Dec 29, 2014 3:10 PM, "T.J. Duchene" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If I might offer my two cents, I'm afraid that I must agree. Don't get >> me wrong, the vdev proposal is quite interesting, but for the first >> release, I believe the best route is to stick with building udev apart from >> the systemd source tree. To do it any other way will probably cause >> software issues that we do not presently have the developer resources to >> solve - especially if we are already going to be busy trying to compile or >> provide metadata for all the packages in Debian Jesse. >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:05 AM, dima <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> You can't just switch to vdev, because many packages depend on libudev. >>> Only udev and eudev provide it. >>> >>> eudev is the only realistic option right now, because it's a drop-in >>> replacement. Moreover, it's the only udev alternative with feature-parity. >>> >>> By the way, I'm not sure whether vdev is ready for the prime time. >>> >>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 22:26:49 -0500 >>> "Martinx - ジェームズ" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Guys, >>> > >>> > I'm wondering here about what to do with `udev`, which is `systemd` in >>> > fact... >>> > >>> > What about this: >>> > >>> > >>> > 1- Rename current `udev` package to `systemd-udev`; >>> > >>> > 2- Add `vdev`; >>> > >>> > 3- Add `eudev`; >>> > >>> > 4- Add `mdev`; >>> > >>> > 4- Create a new Metapackage called `udev`, that will Depends on `eudev >>> | >>> > vdev | mdev | systemd-udev`. >>> > >>> > >>> > This will be very similar to the new `init` Metapackage on Jessie, that >>> > Depends on `systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart`. >>> > >>> > What do you guys think? >>> > >>> > Also, I would like to know more about the quality of `eudev` and if it >>> > worth keeping it, since `systemd` developers will remove its "netlink" >>> > support (am I right)? Then, `systemd-udev` will depends on `systemd` as >>> > PID1 in the future (through KDBUS, if I'm not wrong), making it very >>> hard >>> > to keep `eudev` up to date. Source: >>> > >>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html >>> > >>> > I would like to evaluate `vdev` soon as possible. >>> > >>> > Best! >>> > Thiago >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dima Krasner <[email protected]> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dng mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dng mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng > >
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
