Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 21:55 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > 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? > > > > bitrot and bus factor. > > Examples? I suppose nobody remembers the time (the previous year) where eudev broke reverse dependencies because of wrong version number, and it took around 3 months to get a fix (read: changing the version number) into ~arch. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Tue, 2020-08-11 at 10:59 +0800, Benda Xu wrote: > Hi William, > > William Hubbs writes: > > > No one has offered to switch from eudev to udev and look at > > regressions. People are asking me to show what features exist in udev > > that aren't in eudev. I stuck with udev. I don't use eudev so I don't > > know. > > I don't think imposing a personal preference to the Gentoo default a good > idea. One person who get stuck with udev does not bring everyone to > stick with udev. > So why is the current default based on a personal preference? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
Hi William, William Hubbs writes: > No one has offered to switch from eudev to udev and look at > regressions. People are asking me to show what features exist in udev > that aren't in eudev. I stuck with udev. I don't use eudev so I don't > know. I don't think imposing a personal preference to the Gentoo default a good idea. One person who get stuck with udev does not bring everyone to stick with udev. Benda signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 8/10/2020 22:08, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 9:55 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: >> >> On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? >>> >>> bitrot and bus factor. >> >> Examples? > > The sole maintainer of eudev is going to suddenly disappear before > getting a chance to tell anybody about the horrible security issue > they discovered earlier that day. > >> You meant to say "has yet to come true". >> >> Elsewise, as long as that door remains open, then future tense is >> the correct tense. > > Note that the disappearance of the sole maintainer of eudev has yet to > happen, but we absolutely need to be taking steps today because > everybody knows it will happen. After all, it COULD happen, and so as > long as that door remains open the future tense is the correct tense. > :) I don't disagree completely with your logic, but I *do* disagree that changing the default udev provider to sys-fs/udev is the best option, or the only option. > I find it amusing that everybody is still trembling in fear that > Lennart is going to take their shell scripts away from them in the > middle of the night. But it isn't like anybody needs to touch that > cruft if they don't want to just because they're working on Gentoo, so > whatever rocks your boat. I don't tremble in fear. I am past that stage at this point, and have just accepted the fact that at some point, the Linux I used to know and love will be something I can't work with anymore, and I'll just need to pack my proverbial bags and move on to greener pastures. The day when Linux and systemd become inseparable will happen. But it won't be like going to sleep the night before and waking up in an alien world. The change will be slow and gradual, just like it has been for the past eight-plus years. The question is more, what is my tolerance? At what point do I give up and move on? Haven't found that answer yet, so here I still am, arguing. > Really though I'd just stick with "ain't broke don't fix it" as there > really is no reason to get into paranoid FUD. "Ain't broke don't fix it" doesn't apply here. My read of recent messages on this thread suggest to me the change is going to happen, regardless what a number of us think about it. See last few sentences of the prior paragraph above. -- 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
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 9:55 PM Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > >> > >> If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix? > > > > bitrot and bus factor. > > Examples? The sole maintainer of eudev is going to suddenly disappear before getting a chance to tell anybody about the horrible security issue they discovered earlier that day. > You meant to say "has yet to come true". > > Elsewise, as long as that door remains open, then future tense is > the correct tense. Note that the disappearance of the sole maintainer of eudev has yet to happen, but we absolutely need to be taking steps today because everybody knows it will happen. After all, it COULD happen, and so as long as that door remains open the future tense is the correct tense. :) I find it amusing that everybody is still trembling in fear that Lennart is going to take their shell scripts away from them in the middle of the night. But it isn't like anybody needs to touch that cruft if they don't want to just because they're working on Gentoo, so whatever rocks your boat. Really though I'd just stick with "ain't broke don't fix it" as there really is no reason to get into paranoid FUD. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 8/10/2020 11:22, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> 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? > > bitrot and bus factor. Examples? I don't necessarily stay abreast of what new gizmos upstream udev may or may not be adding that eudev may or may not be missing. Is there something critical that you have observed going into upstream udev that eudev is missing that would be super-awesome or which otherwise improves the lives of aspiring Gentoo users everywhere? Or is it related to unpatched security issues, perhaps? Is there a list of unmitigated CVE's that upstream udev has patched that the eudev team has not? Have you tried reaching out to the eudev developer(s) to see if they're responsive and to maybe raise your concerns about aforementioned "bitrot"? >> 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. > > The thing is, udev was never unsuitable. AS I said the original change > was not because of the lack of suitability, but because of fear of what > the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. You meant to say "has yet to come true". Show me something from the upstream udev developers where they permanently close the door to making udev a symbiotic element to systemd and then I'll accept your use of past tense. Elsewise, as long as that door remains open, then future tense is the correct tense. > > Not that it matters much, but I'll go there since you did, I count 26 > open issues against eudev and some of them have been open since 2012. My search was based on the string "sys-fs/eudev", which is the standard nomenclature for naming bugs. If there are other bugs open for eudev that are missing that, then they need their titles updated. -- 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
Hi, To summarize - There's no known bugs in eudev that are not in udev - There's no bug that would be fixed by switch from eudev to udev - There's no new feature that would change eudev to udev bring - Currently musl and glibc profiles uses common eudev, after change we whould have musl profile users use something that glibc users are not using - You don't like the original decision to switch to eudev so you want now to use uno reverse card. - eudev have single maintainer, but so far it did not had negative impact on Gentoo I see no reason to switch to sys-fs/udev by default, up until there's actually a technical reason behind it. The eudev is a thing because systemd upstream made it clear that they have no intention into keeping udev operational unless it runs under systemd, which is quite important here. -- Piotr. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 05:47:52PM +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:51:41 -0500 > 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? > > No opinion on which to choose, I use the default one at the time I do > an install and have been happy with both. > > My main concern is that since the change won't be "live" until a > switched virtual reaches stable, eudev will still be much better tested > in our environment at this point, and people might uncover corner cases > when it's too late. Maybe a compromise could be to provide and > primarily advertise udev stages before making the switch ? Creating udev stages would require a separate profile which would be removed once we did the default switch, so I'm not sure if we want to go that route. Does anyone remember if we did this for the original eudev switch? If we did, I am open to doing it again, but I honestly don't recall. All of the providers are stable currently, so my thought is a tracker + newsitem with a delay before switching the default. I'm thinking about a 30 day test window where we ask people to migrate their systems and if they find issues open bugs that block the tracker. Thoughts? William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 2020.08.10 16:22, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > 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? > > bitrot and bus factor. > > > 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. > [snip] > ...because of fear of > what > the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. > [snip] > > William > William, Never is a very long time. That promise has not been made good ... yet. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods arm64 pgpshyF9TLPFs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:51:41 -0500 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? No opinion on which to choose, I use the default one at the time I do an install and have been happy with both. My main concern is that since the change won't be "live" until a switched virtual reaches stable, eudev will still be much better tested in our environment at this point, and people might uncover corner cases when it's too late. Maybe a compromise could be to provide and primarily advertise udev stages before making the switch ? Alexis. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iHUEAREIAB0WIQSpOxaxaZikKNVNlsYOJUi7xgflrgUCXzFsKAAKCRAOJUi7xgfl rkDGAP9no3aFUEIPFr3mPHp9lUmIk7ZUl+njCpQo0+GsgoFVuQD+OG2zf3SVSOPs hrYNa/PYEHKujS/Rfk2m180it41yDwM= =/0De -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 12:00:44AM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote: > 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? bitrot and bus factor. > 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. The thing is, udev was never unsuitable. AS I said the original change was not because of the lack of suitability, but because of fear of what the udev devs might do. That fear never came true. Not that it matters much, but I'll go there since you did, I count 26 open issues against eudev and some of them have been open since 2012. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 08:49:20AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > > On 2020-08-10 14:07, Michał Górny wrote: > > > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. > > > > That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718. > > As one who voted yes, my rationale is already in the bug comments, and > I voted yes because it seemed to be the preference of most non-systemd > users on the mailing list. I can't say whether this is still the case > but I'm guessing it is. I don't think it is really a well-founded > preference but I don't really see a point in fighting it when people > can use whichever they prefer. My rationale for voting yes was based on the idea that it would be easy to switch back, and even if we did, it would be easy for someone to switch to eudev if they want it. > If the eudev bus factor drops from 1 to 0 and people get tired of > dealing with it, I suspect switching back will become more popular. > If that never happens that is fine too. If people have unusual > configs not addressed by eudev, or just plain old good taste, they > can always use udev or systemd. > > If eudev were causing serious problems or holding back other projects > for some reason I'd feel differently. Otherwise I tend to agree with > the sense that if you're going to make a change there should be a > reason. The reason for the previous change was that a strong majority > had a strong preference. Based on the tone of discussion I'm not sure > that has changed - there isn't as much vehemence in the discussion, > but I suspect that is mostly because most don't think this is likely > to happen so they don't bother to reply. There's another interpretation. Most users or developers don't care. No one has offered to switch from eudev to udev and look at regressions. People are asking me to show what features exist in udev that aren't in eudev. I stuck with udev. I don't use eudev so I don't know. As I have said earlier on the thread, we should look at udev and seee if it breaks things in relation to eudev. That would take some folks migrating their systems and reporting issues. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2020-08-10 14:07, Michał Górny wrote: > > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. > > That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in > https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718. As one who voted yes, my rationale is already in the bug comments, and I voted yes because it seemed to be the preference of most non-systemd users on the mailing list. I can't say whether this is still the case but I'm guessing it is. I don't think it is really a well-founded preference but I don't really see a point in fighting it when people can use whichever they prefer. If the eudev bus factor drops from 1 to 0 and people get tired of dealing with it, I suspect switching back will become more popular. If that never happens that is fine too. If people have unusual configs not addressed by eudev, or just plain old good taste, they can always use udev or systemd. If eudev were causing serious problems or holding back other projects for some reason I'd feel differently. Otherwise I tend to agree with the sense that if you're going to make a change there should be a reason. The reason for the previous change was that a strong majority had a strong preference. Based on the tone of discussion I'm not sure that has changed - there isn't as much vehemence in the discussion, but I suspect that is mostly because most don't think this is likely to happen so they don't bother to reply. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 2020-08-10 14:07, Michał Górny wrote: > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718. -- 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 Mon, 2020-08-10 at 09:35 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 09 Aug 2020, William Hubbs wrote: > > 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 > > And what does this tell us? Commit count isn't very useful as a metric. Yes, contributor count is a more important metric. It helps us tell the original project that has community from fork with a bus factor of one. > > Do these commits fix any bugs that are still open in eudev? Do they add > any important features? > We can fork any random project and claim that our fork is better because we consider it feature complete. Then we can freely claim that upstream commits don't fix any real bugs, and new features aren't important. If you don't change anything, you don't break anything, right? -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 13:52 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2020-08-09 23:14, William Hubbs wrote: > > 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. > > This is not answering my questions. > > If anything from above would be valid (like others have asked you for > bugs and already mentioned that commit count alone don't say anything) > we wouldn't just be talking about switching default for *new* > installations. Instead we would need to talk about ditching eudev in > general... > > So for me it still looks like change for change's sake without a real > reason. > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. In the end, it all boils down to preference of a single person, and potential of another person reverting it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 2020-08-09 23:14, William Hubbs wrote: > 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. This is not answering my questions. If anything from above would be valid (like others have asked you for bugs and already mentioned that commit count alone don't say anything) we wouldn't just be talking about switching default for *new* installations. Instead we would need to talk about ditching eudev in general... So for me it still looks like change for change's sake without a real reason. -- 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 Sun, 09 Aug 2020, William Hubbs wrote: > 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 And what does this tell us? Commit count isn't very useful as a metric. Do these commits fix any bugs that are still open in eudev? Do they add any important features? Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
