Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk): > Sorry, I wasn't clear. > > As you allude to later, if ExampleCo have got contributors to assign > copyright to them, then they (ExampleCo) are free to change the > licensing terms as they wish - delete all historical "free" stuff* and > make it a

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Rick Moen wrote: > And this is because too many people are just relying on it continuing to > be there. They really ought to stop thinking that way. I'll admit that I haven't given too much thought to who owns what when it comes to the likes of SF - but I do frequently

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 03:10:37PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): > > > Just to be clear, that's the point of open source *as* *originally* > > *envisaged*. Unfortunately, I believe there has been a campaign to > > devalue the meaning of open source to

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com): > Just to be clear, that's the point of open source *as* *originally* > *envisaged*. Unfortunately, I believe there has been a campaign to > devalue the meaning of open source to mean any software fro which the > user gets the source code,

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 02:12:06PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote: > > However, even an open source codebase over which a single, evil-leaning > commercial entity owns sole copyright can be forked at any time. By > anyone. All you need is code access and an appropriate licence. > > That's the whole

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk): > So given the hypothetical case where Exampleco "takes over"* a project > with the sole desire of burying it, the worst (effectively) that any > of the copyright holders in that code could do is have a court order > that Exampleco cease distribution

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Rick Moen wrote: > [Sorry, this ended up being longer than I'd hoped.] That's OK - it's worth the read. > Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk): > >> There was one other thing that came to mind earlier ... >> If ${company} decided to do that, and they had

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

[Sorry, this ended up being longer than I'd hoped.] Quoting Simon Hobson (li...@thehobsons.co.uk): > Indeed. If you have the source then they can't stop you forking the > (GPL) project. Or if you have the complete, buildable source code under any other open source / free software licence.

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Simon Hobson wrote: > There was one other thing that came to mind earlier ... > If ${company} decided to do that, and they had previously distributed > binaries ... doesn't the GPL mean they are required to provide the sources > to anyone

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Nate Bargmann wrote: > Second, clone that repository locally (dead easy with Git). Which is what I was thinking ... In an almost exact parallel, at a previous employer they used a business system which was effectively bespoke and written in Cobol. The history was that it had

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:19:20PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:02:59 +0200 > Didier Kryn wrote: > > They only support theur own software; isn't that > > legitimate? > > Half of "their own software" was bought, either by acquisition or by > hiring project

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 14:47:08 -0400 "Ismael L. Donis Garcia" wrote: > Hopefully in the future we can have 2 alternatives and that the user > can decide which one to use. +1 -- richard lucassen http://contact.xaq.nl/ ___ Dng

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com): > Yes. So is systemd, and so is Dracut, into which Red hat incorporated > systemd things and then emptied its older repositories, making forking > much harder. As has been noted by others, to preserve the ability to fork from other versions, wide

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Didier kryn wrote: << Le 14/08/2016 19:19, Steve Litt a écrit : But one thing's for sure: they have a pattern and practice of taking simple software and make it complex. I think I must agree on this. Eudev could be next. This would be a fully characterized agression

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Le 14/08/2016 19:19, Steve Litt a écrit : But one thing's for sure: they have a pattern and practice of taking simple software and make it complex. I think I must agree on this. Eudev could be next. This would be a fully characterized agression against free software since they

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

If all of this is a concern, here is a simple mitigation strategy. This can be done by projects or individuals. First, determine the canonical (not the company) repository for the project in question. Second, clone that repository locally (dead easy with Git). Third, occasionally update the

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:02:59 +0200 Didier Kryn wrote: > Le 13/08/2016 19:41, Steve Litt a écrit : > > On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:12:04 -0400 > > "Ismael L. Donis Garcia" wrote: > > > > > >> To my mind would be a better option to opt for eudev that vdev as >

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Edward Bartolo: > If the Perl script works, I think, there is NO need to translate it > into another language. Perl is available to the system as soon as the > kernel boots. In fact, I have successfully booted the system with a > simple skeletal PID 1 written in Perl. Possible not if you use a

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Didier: > Le 14/08/2016 15:09, k...@aspodata.se a écrit : > > Didier: > > ... > - Some applications need access to detailed device properties like > keyboard mapping. AFAIU, the kernel API (/sys and /proc) is always > changing and these changes are taken in charge by libudev to present a

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Hi, If the Perl script works, I think, there is NO need to translate it into another language. Perl is available to the system as soon as the kernel boots. In fact, I have successfully booted the system with a simple skeletal PID 1 written in Perl. Edward -- If you can't explain it simply, you

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Le 14/08/2016 15:09, k...@aspodata.se a écrit : Didier: ... Erratum again. The devices are accessible through symlinks in /sys/dev/char and /sys/dev/block. The name of each symlink apparently duplicates the contents of the dev file in the directory it points to. Eg: /sys/dev/char/4:0 -->

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Didier: ... > Erratum again. The devices are accessible through symlinks in > /sys/dev/char and /sys/dev/block. The name of each symlink apparently > duplicates the contents of the dev file in the directory it points to. Eg: > > /sys/dev/char/4:0 --> /sys/devices/virtual/tty/tty0/ > and

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Le 14/08/2016 12:47, Didier Kryn a écrit : Le 10/08/2016 18:56, Didier Kryn a écrit : Le 10/08/2016 18:20, Tomasz Torcz a écrit : Current udev _cannot_ be used to populate /dev, it doesn't contain any mknod() calls enymore. Actually mknod isn't necessary since device files are created

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Le 10/08/2016 18:56, Didier Kryn a écrit : Le 10/08/2016 18:20, Tomasz Torcz a écrit : Current udev _cannot_ be used to populate /dev, it doesn't contain any mknod() calls enymore. Actually mknod isn't necessary since device files are created by the kernel in /sys/block/dev and

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Le 13/08/2016 19:41, Steve Litt a écrit : On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:12:04 -0400 "Ismael L. Donis Garcia" wrote: To my mind would be a better option to opt for eudev that vdev as it has greater support behind. I see half vdev orphan and do not think that support eudev go

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 12:12:04PM -0400, Ismael L. Donis Garcia wrote: > >Slackware uses eudev - not udev - as of version 14.2. So does Gentoo. > > > To my mind would be a better option to opt for eudev that vdev as it has > greater support behind. eudev is a fork of a mature project. It

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

- Original Message - From: "Steve Litt" <sl...@troubleshooters.com> To: <dng@lists.dyne.org> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:12:04 -0400 "Ismael L. Donis Garcia" <sli...@c

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:12:04 -0400 "Ismael L. Donis Garcia" wrote: > To my mind would be a better option to opt for eudev that vdev as it > has greater support behind. > > I see half vdev orphan and do not think that support eudev go to > decant by systemd. And when Red

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

- Original Message - From: "Henry Jensen" <hjen...@gmx.de> To: <dng@lists.dyne.org> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 8:22 AM Subject: Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:51:22AM -0500, dev wrote: On 08/10/2016 04:26 AM, Didier K

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:51:22AM -0500, dev wrote: > > On 08/10/2016 04:26 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: > > Hello. Thanks to a friendly help, I've found a few mails and > > articles which deserve to be read: > > > > Udev on non-systemd is a dead-end: > > So.. then.. basically any Linux

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

- Original Message - From: "Rainer Weikusat" <rweiku...@talktalk.net> To: <dng@lists.dyne.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end dev <devua...@gmail.com> writes: On 08/10/2016 04:26 AM, Didier Kr

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Wed, 8/10/16, richard lucassen <mailingli...@lucassen.org> wrote: Subject: Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end To: dng@lists.dyne.org Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016, 11:35 AM On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:59:58 +0100 Simon Hobson <li...@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote: > How

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Le 10/08/2016 18:20, Tomasz Torcz a écrit : Current udev_cannot_ be used to populate /dev, it doesn't contain any mknod() calls enymore. Actually mknod isn't necessary since device files are created by the kernel in /sys/block/dev and /sys/char/dev and the hotplugger only needs to copy

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 16:59:58 +0100 Simon Hobson wrote: > How long before he decides that Grub needs "improving" ? How long before he decides that the kernel needs "improving"? -- richard lucassen http://contact.xaq.nl/ ___

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 10:51:22AM -0500, dev wrote: > > > On 08/10/2016 04:26 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: > > Hello. Thanks to a friendly help, I've found a few mails and > > articles which deserve to be read: > > > > Udev on non-systemd is a dead-end: > > So.. then.. basically any Linux

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

I wrote: > But reading the original links, he is clearly saying "I'll break stuff > whenever *I* think it's right and I don't care how much work it makes for > others in fixing the result". However ... It does sound like this was an area potentially in want of some looking at. However, the

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

dev writes: > On 08/10/2016 04:26 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: >> Hello. Thanks to a friendly help, I've found a few mails and >> articles which deserve to be read: >> >> Udev on non-systemd is a dead-end: > > So.. then.. basically any Linux distro which uses udev to

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

dev wrote: >>Udev on non-systemd is a dead-end: > > So.. then.. basically any Linux distro which uses udev to populate /dev/ is > going to be S.O.L? Including Slackware presumably? That's about it - and I suspect that Poettering "isn't upset" by that. But reading the

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

On 08/10/2016 04:26 AM, Didier Kryn wrote: Hello. Thanks to a friendly help, I've found a few mails and articles which deserve to be read: Udev on non-systemd is a dead-end: So.. then.. basically any Linux distro which uses udev to populate /dev/ is going to be S.O.L? Including

Re: [DNG] vdev - udev is a dead end

Hello. Thanks to a friendly help, I've found a few mails and articles which deserve to be read: Udev on non-systemd is a dead-end: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html To face issues with Udev, the Linux kernel team has started implementing