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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to