On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote: >> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, >>> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit >>> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked >>> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...) >> >> That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email, >> you would see that we had settled on eudev. > > The name change still doesn't make it any less "entertaining" :) > > What does the "e" stand for?
That is a common question. Someone associated with Canonical suggested that e stand for embedded. Others consider the "eu" prefix to be the greek root for "true". Honestly, we don't care. It is just a name. >>> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you >>> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be >>> accomplished by: >>> - getting patches approved upstream >>> or: >>> - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and >>> applying them to each release >> >> The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its >> derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat. > > Wait, really? You want to replace systemd? Then why are you starting > at udev and not systemd? > > What is wrong with systemd that it requires a fork? All other distros > seem to be participating in the development process of systemd quite > well, what is keeping Gentoo developers from also doing the same? > > What are your goals, specifically, in detail. Is there any way that the answer to your inquiry would result in a productive conversation where you would not attempt to dictate what we do? >>> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev >>> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but >>> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right? And is >>> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working >>> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a >>> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more >>> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.) >> >> See the following: >> >> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3 > > You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency. It's not > inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding > of how things work here. > > Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or > complex, at all. To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in > later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software > methodology that I know of. I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing with them.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature