Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: old udev versions
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the list which versions of udev we really need in the tree. Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked =181 because of bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the situation will stabilize. Since 171 is the latest stable, I would think most of our users are on this version anyway. Since upstream seems to be unwilling to work with us, I think we should seriously consider doing a fork. I know there are other distros like Debian and Slackware who would be happy to join us in that effort. I'm not interested in a fork at this time. I think we can continue making udev work for us as is, and the way upstream is doing things isn't affecting binary package based distros, so we would basically be on our own. The deal is that upstream supports *running* udev separately, but not *building* it separately [1]. Their approach works wonderfully if you are a binary package based distro, so I'm not sure Debian, Slackware, etc would really have any incentive to join a fork at this point. William [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds pgpWkIspVxAgb.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] rfc: old udev versions
All, the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the list which versions of udev we really need in the tree. I know that all versions before 133 must go because openrc has a requirement for at least that version. I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way back to 2.6.16 (I have no idea why)? Any thoughts would be helpful. Thanks, William pgpCF1apq2yMO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: old udev versions
I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way back to 2.6.16 (I have no idea why)? Well just for the record my vserver (xen domU) hoster is still going strong with 2.6.30 ... I'm trying to get that changed but with 10€/month I'm probably not the strongest financial incentive... a pity because otherwise I'm really very happy with the company... -a -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: old udev versions
I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way back to 2.6.16 (I have no idea why)? I think, at the very least, we want to support kernel 2.6.32 or later via whatever methods are required in Gentoo to allow those existing systems to keep running and recompile as needed. 2.6.32 is used by a number of mainstream distributions as a long term stable release. And, cautious admins migrating to Gentoo or supporting the same apps on multiple distributions may want to continue to stick with that kernel release for awhile. I'm also aware that 2.6.36 was widely deployed for gentoo servers around here, although some of those systems have started to migrate to 3.2.I'm not sure how much of a need there would be for anything older than 2.6.32. 2.6.32 would seem to be a reasonable cutoff. As for udev specifically, 171 is what is deployed on most boxes here to avoid any possible need for an initrd or other possible bugs with newer releases... Reading the udev-171 ebuild, it appears it supports 2.6.16 so I'm not sure if there is any need for udev versions earlier than 171.
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: old udev versions
On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: All, the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the list which versions of udev we really need in the tree. Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked =181 because of bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the situation will stabilize. Since 171 is the latest stable, I would think most of our users are on this version anyway. Since upstream seems to be unwilling to work with us, I think we should seriously consider doing a fork. I know there are other distros like Debian and Slackware who would be happy to join us in that effort. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
