Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new > systems from eudev to udev. > > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked, > this applies to non-glibc configurations). > > What do people think? > > Thanks, > > William Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, why not? If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? It works fine for new installs, having just done one myself. Seems like we aught to keep it that way. I count six open bugs against eudev right now, and none of them look to be critical, so I vote "no" on your proposal unless there is some verifiable reason why eudev is no longer suitable to be the default udev provider. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
William Hubbs writes: >> William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things? >> Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and >> generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they >> intentionally don't want to accept)? > > It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I > don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What > I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago, > and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev. What feature do you miss from systemd-udev that has been added within a year? udev should be a stable part of the system, I would rather have new Gentoo users install something stable by default than a moving target. Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2020-08-09 23:59 UTC
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed from the tree, for the week ending 2020-08-09 23:59 UTC. Removals: dev-tex/cjk-latex20200804-10:02 zlogene 814a4d02b1d kde-apps/kblog 20200807-18:21 asturm f9300873b60 virtual/wireguard20200806-10:38 zx2c47fefa20b819 Additions: acct-group/unbound 20200806-12:32 whissi 07521c403cb acct-user/unbound20200806-12:41 whissi bb79af5372f app-emacs/vterm 20200804-11:28 ulm 8d01f01ca8e dev-haskell/alex-tools 20200805-08:08 slyfox e8b8483ac9f dev-haskell/binary-instances 20200804-06:38 slyfox 42d19b038a4 dev-haskell/only 20200804-07:31 slyfox 270c3a0b6e4 dev-haskell/text-short 20200804-07:45 slyfox ed0af4f6834 dev-haskell/uri-bytestring-aeson 20200804-06:55 slyfox 8df338804fd dev-perl/Pod-Parser 20200807-21:34 dilfridge5caa85f86f5 net-proxy/microsocks 20200805-21:15 chutzpah 90938bfdf79 sys-fs/exfatprogs20200805-06:21 polynomial-c f969b88e97f sys-power/dptfxtract 20200804-08:56 pachof5fddfa4003 -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 Removed Packages: kde-apps/kblog,removed,asturm,20200807-18:21,f9300873b60 virtual/wireguard,removed,zx2c4,20200806-10:38,7fefa20b819 dev-tex/cjk-latex,removed,zlogene,20200804-10:02,814a4d02b1d Added Packages: dev-perl/Pod-Parser,added,dilfridge,20200807-21:34,5caa85f86f5 acct-user/unbound,added,whissi,20200806-12:41,bb79af5372f acct-group/unbound,added,whissi,20200806-12:32,07521c403cb net-proxy/microsocks,added,chutzpah,20200805-21:15,90938bfdf79 dev-haskell/alex-tools,added,slyfox,20200805-08:08,e8b8483ac9f sys-fs/exfatprogs,added,polynomial-c,20200805-06:21,f969b88e97f app-emacs/vterm,added,ulm,20200804-11:28,8d01f01ca8e sys-power/dptfxtract,added,pacho,20200804-08:56,f5fddfa4003 dev-haskell/text-short,added,slyfox,20200804-07:45,ed0af4f6834 dev-haskell/only,added,slyfox,20200804-07:31,270c3a0b6e4 dev-haskell/uri-bytestring-aeson,added,slyfox,20200804-06:55,8df338804fd dev-haskell/binary-instances,added,slyfox,20200804-06:38,42d19b038a4 Done.
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:22:44PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > > What do people think? > > > > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this? > > Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away > from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As > already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable > without systemd they would have by now. > > > What do you expect from this change? > > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by > > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev? Here is something else to consider. Blueness and any of the other eudev maintainers are doing good work for alternative c library support such as musl. In fact, the musl profiles hard mask sys-fs/udev, so they are covered no matter what happens as a result of this thread. Eudev is supposed to be udev without systemd along with alternative c library support, but it appears to be behind what eudev offers. The following commit appears to be the last time eudev synced with udev: https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commit/2ab887ec67afd15eb9b0849467f1f9c036a2b6c8 There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date of this sync: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev There are several new commits in libudev and udev rules since then as well: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/libudev https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/rules.d I would like to publically thank Leio for providing me with the information above. I asked the council for guidance and was told that they don't need to be involved, so I guess the best thing to do now is call for testers. It would be helpful if people migrate their systems manually from eudev to udev and report issues. I'm not a valid test case because I have always run udev. Thanks, William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:22 AM William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > > What do people think? > > > > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this? > > Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away > from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As > already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable > without systemd they would have by now. > > > What do you expect from this change? > > I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community > uses for device management. > "I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community uses for init management." So we should make the systemd profile the default? :) > > > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by > > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use > sys-fs/udev? > > Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It > was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages. > It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd > consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd. > You asked me on IRC "how do I convince people" and part of that is to make it easy to agree with your argument! Asking me to read a bunch of crap isn't going to make me want to agree; its going to make me say "your argument is poorly formed, please go away." - Link to the things you want me to read. - Summarize them so I don't have to read a 100 message long thread from 5 years ago. - Make an argument! --- "I think we picked eudev as the default because of a concern that udev would eventually require systemd for operation, you can see this from these mailing list posts: X, Y, Z." "The above concern has not manifested itself and I believe udev will continue to not strictly require systemd init for various reasons (mention list of cases here." "Therefore I think we should change the default udev provider from eudev to udev in the default profiles." --- This would be what I believe is a understandable argument (provided we had the links to the previous material.) I'm not saying I agree[0] with it; but I'd at least understand why you want the change to happen. > Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are > cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am > saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default > distro wide. William > > [0] I expect that most users who want udev actually also want systemd and so will simply select the systemd profile itself, and that this choice is immaterial to most users; so I am for keeping the status quo here.
[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: app-admin/gentoo-rsync-mirror, app-misc/screenie
Dear all the following packages are up for grabs after retirement of the proxied maintainer: app-admin/gentoo-rsync-mirror https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/app-admin/gentoo-rsync-mirror This package should really have a maintainer, if it is still used by our mirrors. app-misc/screenie https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/app-misc/screenie 1 open bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/639406 several with open bugs and bump requests. -- Best, Jonas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > What do people think? > > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this? Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable without systemd they would have by now. > What do you expect from this change? I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community uses for device management. > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev? Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages. It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd. Years later, this has not happened, so to be honest, I think it is time to admit that we , as a council and distro, over reacted and undo that over reaction. Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default distro wide. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote: > What do people think? Like others already asked: What's the reason for this? What do you expect from this change? Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev? -- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:57 PM William Hubbs wrote: > Hi Rich, > > > William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things? > > Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and > > generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they > > intentionally don't want to accept)? > > It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I > don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What > I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago, > and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev. > > > I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the > > two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of > > were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default > > persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not > > made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other > > differences. > > The only other one I know of is if you aren't using glibc udev will not > compile, but I'm not even sure that is an issue still. > > The way I see it, we switched away from udev because of a fear that > never materialized, and I'm not convinced that we have enough time to > keep it in feature parity with udev which it needs to be to be the > default provider. Name the missing features in eudev.
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/paver
# Michał Górny (2020-08-09) # Build tool with no revdeps left. # Removal in 30 days. Bug #736517. dev-python/paver -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Packages up for grabs: www-apps/jekyll-coffeescript, www-apps/jekyll-sass-converter
Hello, I've taken over www-apps/jekyll* for Infra back in the day but I'm no longer really maintaining it. Two of the packages have another maintainer but the two listed below are now maintainer-needed: www-apps/jekyll-coffeescript www-apps/jekyll-sass-converter The first one has a test failure reported, both seem to be up-to-date. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-vcs/git-bz
# Michał Górny (2020-08-09) # Python 2 only. No commits since 2015. # Removal in 30 days. Bug #735334. dev-vcs/git-bz -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
