On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2012 1:22 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <can...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: >> > >> > On Mar 15, 2012 12:25 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <can...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> > ---- >8 snip >> > >> >> >> >> That if I connect a USB wi-fi dongle, and it appears with the name >> >> wlan23, I want *every* time that dongle to have the wlan23 name .Good >> >> luck doing that without a database. >> >> >> > >> > That could -- should -- be handled by a script or a program that looks >> > up >> > the database, do the checks, and rename the node accordingly. >> > >> > All the device manager got to do is to plug in into the hotplug kernel >> > knob, >> > whereby it will be invoked on every hotplug event, and depending on the >> > nature if the device (which, in your example, fits the pattern "wlan*") >> > fires the script/program which performs the lookup+rename part. >> > >> > mdev can do that. >> >> udev already does it. >> > > So does mdev. If writing a simple script is so distressing for you, why in > the world are you using Gentoo, with all its manual labor?
Whoa, relax man. We are discussing (or at least I'm trying) in a civil manner the technical merits of two proposed solutions for a problem. No need to get personal. (And BTW, I've been using Gentoo since 2003, and I maintain an overlay to use systemd without the need of having openrc/baselayout installed). >> > Put it under /bin >> > >> > Done. >> >> Yeah, right. And put LVM2 binaries in /bin. And wpa_supplicant (maybe >> I need a wireless connected NFS share). And... >> >> Not scalable. Doesn't solve the general case. You are seeing too small. >> > > *You* are not seeing _at all_. Witness how the Fedora devs want to merge > /bin and /sbin Yeah. I agree with their decision. Read: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html > It *is* scalable. Ever tried du /usr? Yeah, from time to time. Fail to see your point. > The problem was -- is -- that package maintainers blindly put binaries > required for booting into /usr No problem with an intiramfs :D >> > The vast majority of Linux users, be they using PCs or smartphones, only >> > need a mechanism to handle hotplugs. >> > >> > udev can do it, but so can mdev (with the help of helper >> > scripts/programs). >> >> udev can do it *right now*, no hacks involved. Go and hack mdev until >> it handles *ALL* the cases udev handles, and see how complex it gets. >> > > If you're so afraid of doing things manually, you have no business using > Gentoo in the first place. Again with the personal attacks; relax man. No need to get all worked out. > Here's a prototype script to ensure that certain NICs will always end up the > way you want it named: > > #!/bin/sh > mac="$( cat /proc/net/arp | awk -V dev="$MDEV" 'NR==1{next} $6==dev {print > $4}')" > name="$(awk -V mac="$mac" '$1==mac {print $2}')" > [ "$name" ] && mv /dev/$MDEV /dev/$name > exit 0 > > (Prototype, because I don't have access to a Linux box atm, so I can't test) Yeah, I'm gonna try that instead of udev, which works out of the box. I'm gonna pass, thank you. >> Been there, tried that. What do you think devfs was? We tried this >> path already: it doesn't work, it doesn't scale. You couple together >> the device manager and the database handling and the firing of >> associated scripts because that's the technical correct solution. It >> *is* more complex, for sure, but so it's the general problem we are >> trying to solve. >> > > If you step down from your high chair for awhile and read the busybox thread > I've been linking, you'll know the difference. One of the emails in that > thread explained it. Relax, I'm not on a high chair; again, I'm just stating my opinion. I have read the mail, I think the day it was posted. I don't buy it, for all the reasons I have been saying. >> > udev is going the kitchen sink route. mdev stays the lego brick path. >> >> And guess what? I don't want a toy solution built with lego blocks. > > Obviously idioms went way over your head. > > If you're taking the "Lego brick" allegory as literal, then good luck with > your kitchen sink. At least I know that with Lego bricks, amazing works of > art have been created. :-P :D Actually, a Lego brick is a good analogy for mdev (in its current state). It's a beautiful toy; but again, nobody has pointed out how to make it work with bluetooth devices, for example. From Walt's mail (his words, not mine): "This revision includes some checking to see if your system can run without udev. In general, if you use any of... * GNOME * KDE * XFCE * lvm2 ... you probably need udev, so mdev is not for you." >> I >> want a robust, general solution, that it is bound to work *now* and in >> the future. >> > > So? What makes you think that in the future suddenly mdev stops working? I doesn't work, out of the box, right now. Again, see Walt's mail. > The flip side: as udev gets more and more complex, how could you be sure it > won't catastrophically fail one day, just like HAL? Educated guess ;) I have been using Linux since 1997. I lived through the OSS -> ALSA transition, the GNOME 1.0 -> GNOME 1.2 -> GNOME 2.0 -> GNOME 3.0 transition, the xine -> Mplayer -> Totem transition, the HAL -> no-HAL transition, and (of course) the mknod -> devfs -udev transition. I'm willing to bet yet another beer that udev will not have the fate HAL had. >> > Talk about double standards :-) >> >> When I hear Walt saying that mdev handles GNOME/KDE/XFCE/LVM2, you may >> say that. Right *now*, Walt says mdev doesn't handle those cases. >> > > Walt said that mdev doesn't work with LVM2, but then Alan said that actually > LVM2 works after booting. It just didn't work during booting. Suspiciously a > case of missing/misnamed dev nodes to me, easily fixable by adding some > mdev.conf rules. So, easily fix it. I'm not using it anyhow. >> Go and solve it then. I will keep using udev, which works right now, thank >> you. >> > > I am not using LVM, so I have no test case. But I certainly will pursue this > issue -- had you not derail the thread by slandering mdev with all your > might. I'm not slandering anyone; I'm just stating my opinion. mdev cannot do what udev does, and I believe the mdev developers agree with that (certainly Walt does). I don't see why that's "slandering". Don't take it personal man, relax. >> >> With all due respect, Alan (and this is completely sincere, in this >> >> list you are of the guys I respect the most), I believe you are >> >> thinking too small. >> >> >> > >> > With all due respect, I believe *you* are too defensive in regards to >> > udev. >> >> I'm not defending anything; just stating my opinion. You are free to >> disagree, of course. >> > > The way you write it, as if udev is the greatest thing since slice bread > while mdev is 'useless and destined to fail'? No, udev solves the general problem, mdev not. That's it. > Sounds like a fanboy rant to me :-) If you say so. Not the case, actually. >> Go and code if it's really easy and simple and doable. Me? I will >> stick with udev, 'cause it works. And it works *right now*, in all my >> use cases and even some I don't plan to have in the near future. >> > > If it's a case of missing node, it's *very* easy: Identify what node it's > being expected, identify what node was created by mdev, edit mdev.conf to > perform a rename+symlink. Then do it. My "slandering" (so you call it) should not matter. >> If someone is willing (and able) to do it, good for him/she/them. I'm >> sticking with udev, and if at some point mdev does everything udev >> does right now, I again bet a beer that the first would be as complex >> as the second. >> > > You are *totally* missing the point. I believe I'm not. > The point was never to make mdev as complex as udev. You *are* missing my point. My prediction is that if mdev ever handles all the cases udev does, mdev will be as complex as udev. I could be wrong, of course. But again, educated guess ;) > The point was to give people option by *not* requiring udev, but only > virtual/device-manager. And good for them. > Users no longer have to choose between two dichotomies, i.e., the omnipotent > udev vs the simplistic mdev. Instead, they can choose between the bloated > udev, or the lean mdev which *already can* cater for more complex behavior > if necessary. Bluetooth anybody? And relax man, this is friendly dicussion, not religious rethoric. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
