[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] meson.eclass: stop calling ninja
Use the compile and install subcommands of meson instead of calling
ninja. This allows for the possibility of a different back end.
Signed-off-by: William Hubbs
---
eclass/meson.eclass | 24 +---
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/eclass/meson.eclass b/eclass/meson.eclass
index 2a563e367c6..e9c9b155096 100644
--- a/eclass/meson.eclass
+++ b/eclass/meson.eclass
@@ -379,7 +379,21 @@ meson_src_configure() {
meson_src_compile() {
debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "$@"
- eninja -C "${BUILD_DIR}" "$@"
+ local mesoncompileargs=(
+ -C "${BUILD_DIR}"
+ )
+ if [[ -n ${NINJAOPTS} ]]; then
+ mesoncompileargs+=(
+ --jobs "$(makeopts_jobs ${NINJAOPTS})"
+ --load-average "$(makeopts_loadavg ${NINJAOPTS})"
+ )
+ elif [[ -n ${MAKEOPTS} ]]; then
+ mesoncompileargs+=(
+ --jobs "$(makeopts_jobs ${MAKEOPTS})"
+ --load-average "$(makeopts_loadavg ${MAKEOPTS})"
+ )
+
+ meson compile "${mesoncompileargs[@]}" "$@" || die "compile failed"
}
# @FUNCTION: meson_src_test
@@ -406,13 +420,17 @@ meson_src_test() {
}
# @FUNCTION: meson_src_install
-# @USAGE: [extra ninja install arguments]
+# @USAGE: [extra meson install arguments]
# @DESCRIPTION:
# This is the meson_src_install function.
meson_src_install() {
debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "$@"
- DESTDIR="${D}" eninja -C "${BUILD_DIR}" install "$@"
+ local mesoninstallargs=(
+ -C "${BUILD_DIR}" "$@"
+ --destdir "${D}"
+ )
+ meson install "${mesoninstallargs[@]}" "$@"
pushd "${S}" > /dev/null || die
einstalldocs
--
2.31.1
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Plans for a Gentoo/LoongArch port
On 8/12/21 14:39, Ulrich Mueller wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2021, Michał Górny wrote: On Thu, 2021-08-12 at 09:21 +0800, WANG Xuerui wrote: I would say this is mostly aesthetic matter, because we have equally long ARCH names like "microblaze" or "openrisc" too. From a user's perspective I'd personally prefer "loong" to save some typing, but "loongarch" wouldn't hurt that much either. I think following upstream (i.e. "loongarch" convention) is better. We have already caused some mess with custom names like "arm64". Can we please keep these identifiers short? Currently all ARCH names are 5 characters at most (except prefix, of course). The total length of the KEYWORDS line isn't the main issue here, but tools like eshowkw or tables in the various web interfaces. It is also in GLEP 53 if you need a formal reference: "Note that no limit on the length of both fields in the keyword are imposed. However, we cannot overemphasize our preference to keep keywords small and sensible." It seems the discussion has gone quiet for a while now, so I take that we choose ARCH=loong over ARCH=loongarch according to GLEP 53? If that doesn't receive much objection, I'll prepare and send the first few eclass patches soon. Ulrich
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] kernel-2.eclass: Add cpio dependency
On 8/23/21 7:15 PM, John Helmert III wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 06:55:57PM -0400, Mike wrote:
>> Add cpio dependency to kernel-2.eclass
>>
>> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/731666
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano
>> ---
>> eclass/kernel-2.eclass | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/eclass/kernel-2.eclass b/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
>> index e3d556f2b..83d173d77 100644
>> --- a/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
>> +++ b/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
>> @@ -586,6 +586,7 @@ if [[ ${ETYPE} == sources ]]; then
>> dev-lang/perl
>> sys-devel/bc
>> sys-devel/bison
>> +app-arch/cpio
>
> Any reason to not keep the dependencies sorted?
>
No reason, I'll re-sort before I commit.
Thanks for the review.
--
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead
E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 52CC A0B0 F631 0B17 0142 F83F 92A6 DBEC 81F2 B137
Public Key :
http://http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x92A6DBEC81F2B137=index
Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] kernel-2.eclass: Add cpio dependency
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 06:55:57PM -0400, Mike wrote:
> Add cpio dependency to kernel-2.eclass
>
> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/731666
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano
> ---
> eclass/kernel-2.eclass | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/eclass/kernel-2.eclass b/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
> index e3d556f2b..83d173d77 100644
> --- a/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
> +++ b/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
> @@ -586,6 +586,7 @@ if [[ ${ETYPE} == sources ]]; then
> dev-lang/perl
> sys-devel/bc
> sys-devel/bison
> + app-arch/cpio
Any reason to not keep the dependencies sorted?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/1] kernel-2.eclass: Add cpio dependency
Add cpio dependency to kernel-2.eclass
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/731666
Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano
---
eclass/kernel-2.eclass | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/eclass/kernel-2.eclass b/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
index e3d556f2b..83d173d77 100644
--- a/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
+++ b/eclass/kernel-2.eclass
@@ -586,6 +586,7 @@ if [[ ${ETYPE} == sources ]]; then
dev-lang/perl
sys-devel/bc
sys-devel/bison
+ app-arch/cpio
sys-devel/flex
sys-devel/make
>=sys-libs/ncurses-5.2
--
2.31.1
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH v2] linux-mod.eclass: respect INSTALL_MOD_PATH
Change to respect INSTALL_MOD_PATH
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642240
Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano
---
eclass/linux-mod.eclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/eclass/linux-mod.eclass b/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
index e87c5ec0c..7e47a2e20 100644
--- a/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
+++ b/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
@@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ linux-mod_src_install() {
einfo "Installing ${modulename} module"
cd "${objdir}" || die "${objdir} does not exist"
- insinto /lib/modules/${KV_FULL}/${libdir}
+ insinto "${INSTALL_MOD_PATH}"/lib/modules/${KV_FULL}/${libdir}
doins ${modulename}.${KV_OBJ} || die "doins ${modulename}.${KV_OBJ}
failed"
cd "${OLDPWD}"
--
2.31.1
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On 8/23/2021 12:24, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 16:36 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: >> > **WARNING** > > If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" > glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev > contains > "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule > will > likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any issues? >> >>> I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a >>> prefix >>> for files installed by sys-fs/udev. >> >> So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of >> the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the >> above mentioned directories. >> >> Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had >> followed our previous advice? Seriously? > > I'm pretty sure we've never officially advised anyone to remove > important directories via INSTALL_MASK. INSTALL_MASK on unit > directories will not affect udev users. On the other hand, if someone > was overzealous and stripped whole /lib/systemd... no compassion from > me, sorry. Digging around, I am pretty sure I picked up the INSTALL_MASK tip from something we put out. Only current info I can find so far is on the Wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_Without_systemd#systemd_unit_files History on that page goes back to 2014, but the first mention of INSTALL_MASK looks to have been added by the edit on 22 Sep 2018 @ 19:05: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Gentoo_Without_systemd=735246 However, I know I've had the INSTALL_MASK lines on several of my machines for a few years before that. In any case, looking into my mail archives, it appears this bike shed has been painted over a few times before: 2012: "Global Systemd USE Flag" https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/5ca98a9af71db715fa68632ec1335755 2014: "Possibility of overriding user defined INSTALL_MASK from an ebuild?" https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/c20d9ada8e05dc1707f021ff01d28802 Seems like the sane option is to just drop the INSTALL_MASK and deal with a gaggle of systemd unit files eating up some inode space. I obviously took umbrage once upon a time, but I guess the older you get, the less you care. -- 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] [PATCH] linux-mod.eclass: respect INSTALL_MOD_PATH
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 14:32 -0400, Mike Pagano wrote:
> Change to respect INSTALL_MOD_PATH
>
> Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642240
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano
> ---
> eclass/linux-mod.eclass | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/eclass/linux-mod.eclass b/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
> index e87c5ec0c..48d7a8cbb 100644
> --- a/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
> +++ b/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
> @@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ linux-mod_src_install() {
>
> einfo "Installing ${modulename} module"
> cd "${objdir}" || die "${objdir} does not exist"
> - insinto /lib/modules/${KV_FULL}/${libdir}
> + insinto ${INSTALL_MOD_PATH}/lib/modules/${KV_FULL}/${libdir}
Double quotes?
> doins ${modulename}.${KV_OBJ} || die "doins
> ${modulename}.${KV_OBJ} failed"
> cd "${OLDPWD}"
>
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[gentoo-dev] [PATCH] linux-mod.eclass: respect INSTALL_MOD_PATH
Change to respect INSTALL_MOD_PATH
Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642240
Signed-off-by: Mike Pagano
---
eclass/linux-mod.eclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/eclass/linux-mod.eclass b/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
index e87c5ec0c..48d7a8cbb 100644
--- a/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
+++ b/eclass/linux-mod.eclass
@@ -741,7 +741,7 @@ linux-mod_src_install() {
einfo "Installing ${modulename} module"
cd "${objdir}" || die "${objdir} does not exist"
- insinto /lib/modules/${KV_FULL}/${libdir}
+ insinto ${INSTALL_MOD_PATH}/lib/modules/${KV_FULL}/${libdir}
doins ${modulename}.${KV_OBJ} || die "doins ${modulename}.${KV_OBJ}
failed"
cd "${OLDPWD}"
--
2.31.1
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
> On 22 Aug 2021, at 21:14, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > [snip] > > > Title: eudev retirement on 2022-01-01 > Author: Anthony G. Basile > Posted: 2021-08-xx > Revision: 1 > News-Item-Format: 2.0 > Display-If-Installed: sys-fs/eudev > Let's mention that people should double check if they're relying on the old naming rules via the /etc/ rule in eudev? (Suggested by tirnanog on IRC). best, sam signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 18:24, Michał Górny wrote: > I'm pretty sure we've never officially advised anyone to remove > important directories via INSTALL_MASK. INSTALL_MASK on unit > directories will not affect udev users. On the other hand, if someone > was overzealous and stripped whole /lib/systemd... no compassion from > me, sorry. > > We don't go out of way to support people using USE=-* either, yet that > is certainly *less stupid* than stripping arbitrary directory trees. This doesn't seem like arbitrary directories at all, but rather very targeted at specific systemd locations. It is not clear which, if any, of the mentioned locations are needed by udev. I have found one of my machines which was created not that many years ago have an even more overzealous mask, which was probably arrived at by reading some forum thread. INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd /lib/systemd /usr/lib/modules-load.d" Someone mentioned /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd earlier, is this a binary that is needed? Cheers, Arve
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 16:36 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: > > > > > **WARNING** > > > > > > > > If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" > > > > glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev > > > > contains > > > > "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule > > > > will > > > > likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. > > > > > > Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any > > > issues? > > > I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a > > prefix > > for files installed by sys-fs/udev. > > So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of > the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the > above mentioned directories. > > Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had > followed our previous advice? Seriously? I'm pretty sure we've never officially advised anyone to remove important directories via INSTALL_MASK. INSTALL_MASK on unit directories will not affect udev users. On the other hand, if someone was overzealous and stripped whole /lib/systemd... no compassion from me, sorry. We don't go out of way to support people using USE=-* either, yet that is certainly *less stupid* than stripping arbitrary directory trees. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On 8/23/21 11:05 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:36 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: >> > **WARNING** > > If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" > glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev contains > "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule will > likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any issues? >> >>> I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a prefix >>> for files installed by sys-fs/udev. >> >> So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of >> the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the >> above mentioned directories. > > Well, the argument is that we don't use USE flags to prevent packages > from installing small text files. It is the same reason we don't have > an openrc USE flag to control installing init.d scripts. We're now > talking about pretty far back in history but I think this was a > general guideline before systemd even came along. > >> Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had >> followed our previous advice? Seriously? > > Did we ever officially advise people to use INSTALL_MASK at all? I > thought that was mostly a "you can keep the pieces if you break > things" option we provide. IMO the risks of people misusing it are > far greater than the possible harm of having a few hundred small text > files installed on their system, but it is there if people really want > to use it. I remember this discussion well. It was for those "stubborn" people who wanted a clean system. I added to the discussion by saying "what about embedded systems people where every file counts because of inode and block allocation constraints" and the answer was INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag, for the reasons Rich stated. This was to create a openrc/systemd agnostic system. Having said that, I'm open to whatever solution/wording you might suggest. > > However, having used the option in the past shouldn't hurt anybody. > It only impacts people if they use it when they install udev, hence > the news item. > -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 11:16 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:46 AM David Seifert wrote:
> >
> > Let assume the counterfactual for a moment here: We retained the
> > USE=systemd flag for all unit files and what not, so people can
> > cleanse
> > themselves of the systemd units etc. without resorting to
> > INSTALL_MASK.
> >
> > How would USE=-systemd have prevented this situation? USE=-systemd
> > would
> > randomly mv and sed random files so the "systemd-" prefix doesn't show
> > up?
>
> So, I think using USE=systemd to control installing units is a bad
> idea, for the same reason that it is a bad idea for controlling init.d
> scripts. It results in users having to rebuild half their system just
> to get those files installed if they later need them.
>
> However, the argument would be that if we had used USE=systemd to
> control installing units, then users wouldn't set an INSTALL_MASK, and
> thus when udev comes along it would still install everything just
> fine. I doubt we'd have it rename anything - the systemd- prefix
> would still apply, but since there are no INSTALL_MASKs then it
> wouldn't cause any issues. The issue isn't systemd in the
> filenames/paths, but users attempts to keep things from being
> installed with those names/paths.
Where did we ever recommend that in an official capacity? I recall
people saying this off-the-record on IRC ("...then use INSTALL_MASK if
you have to remove the units"), but removing any kind of file from the
image has a likelihood of breaking something, hence I can't imagine us
recommending this in the handbook or on OFFICIAL wiki pages.
Anyhow, that ship has already sailed ages ago with sys-auth/elogind:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/758632
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:46 AM David Seifert wrote: > > Let assume the counterfactual for a moment here: We retained the > USE=systemd flag for all unit files and what not, so people can cleanse > themselves of the systemd units etc. without resorting to INSTALL_MASK. > > How would USE=-systemd have prevented this situation? USE=-systemd would > randomly mv and sed random files so the "systemd-" prefix doesn't show > up? So, I think using USE=systemd to control installing units is a bad idea, for the same reason that it is a bad idea for controlling init.d scripts. It results in users having to rebuild half their system just to get those files installed if they later need them. However, the argument would be that if we had used USE=systemd to control installing units, then users wouldn't set an INSTALL_MASK, and thus when udev comes along it would still install everything just fine. I doubt we'd have it rename anything - the systemd- prefix would still apply, but since there are no INSTALL_MASKs then it wouldn't cause any issues. The issue isn't systemd in the filenames/paths, but users attempts to keep things from being installed with those names/paths. I'm not sure what exactly udev installs, but obviously install masks might or might not cause harm depending on how specific they are. If they are just for "*systemd*" then that would be pretty likely to clobber important stuff. If it is just targeting systemd units in /etc/systemd/system then that seems pretty unlikely to harm anything if you aren't running systemd as your service manager. I notice systemd installs udev to /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd and that would be probably the path most likely to cause issues. Most of the rules are under /lib/udev and so on, and there are things in the generic lib directories. However, I'm using systemd and not the standalone udev ebuild - it might do some things differently. IMO if users really just want to get rid of unit files they're probably better off masking /etc/systemd/system and /lib/systemd/system. Most of the other stuff in that path is installed by systemd itself, which users won't have if they're not using it. I get that there are a lot of strong opinions in this area, but the issues that can arise probably aren't worth the fuss except in very extreme situations where every inode counts/etc. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:36 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: > > >>> **WARNING** > >>> > >>> If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" > >>> glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev contains > >>> "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule will > >>> likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. > >> > >> Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any > >> issues? > > > I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a prefix > > for files installed by sys-fs/udev. > > So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of > the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the > above mentioned directories. Well, the argument is that we don't use USE flags to prevent packages from installing small text files. It is the same reason we don't have an openrc USE flag to control installing init.d scripts. We're now talking about pretty far back in history but I think this was a general guideline before systemd even came along. > Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had > followed our previous advice? Seriously? Did we ever officially advise people to use INSTALL_MASK at all? I thought that was mostly a "you can keep the pieces if you break things" option we provide. IMO the risks of people misusing it are far greater than the possible harm of having a few hundred small text files installed on their system, but it is there if people really want to use it. However, having used the option in the past shouldn't hurt anybody. It only impacts people if they use it when they install udev, hence the news item. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 16:36 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: > > > > > **WARNING** > > > > > > > > If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" > > > > glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev > > > > contains > > > > "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule > > > > will > > > > likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. > > > > > > Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any > > > issues? > > > I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a > > prefix > > for files installed by sys-fs/udev. > > So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of > the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the > above mentioned directories. > > Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had > followed our previous advice? Seriously? > > Ulrich Let assume the counterfactual for a moment here: We retained the USE=systemd flag for all unit files and what not, so people can cleanse themselves of the systemd units etc. without resorting to INSTALL_MASK. How would USE=-systemd have prevented this situation? USE=-systemd would randomly mv and sed random files so the "systemd-" prefix doesn't show up?
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021, Anthony G Basile wrote: >>> **WARNING** >>> >>> If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" >>> glob, you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev contains >>> "systemd" in some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule will >>> likely lead to a non-functional udev installation. >> >> Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any >> issues? > I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a prefix > for files installed by sys-fs/udev. So, we've abandoned the systemd USE flag, and I remember that one of the arguments was that users could use INSTALL_MASK for precisely the above mentioned directories. Now the message is that users' systems will be broken if they had followed our previous advice? Seriously? Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] News item for eudev deprecation
On 8/22/21 5:00 PM, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 8/22/2021 16:14, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> Yes! It is time to finally deprecate eudev! sys-fs/udev now builds >> under musl! My original purpose for maintaining eudev was because >> systemd + musl did not play well together when udev was absorbed into >> the sytemd repo. Now thanks to patches from openembedded, they do, and >> my original reason for maintaining eudev is no longer valid. So its >> time to retire eudev. It has served its purpose as a stop-gap. >> >> To me, this is a success for musl, and I would like to thank all the >> developers who have taken musl seriously enough to make this happen :) >> >> I am willing to transfer the eudev repo to another organization, but I >> will not maintain it anymore and Base System doesn't want to either. >> Let me warn people, to maintain it correctly you MUST become familiar >> with its internals and watch what systemd is doing upstream to keep up. >> This is not trivial. I learned a lot from eudev, and it did save musl >> on gentoo, but there was a period there when it was taking up almost all >> of my time. If you don't know what you're getting into, you don't want >> to take on its maintenance. > > Which version of sys-fs/udev has the patches that allow it to replace eudev? > Do these patches have any chance of being accepted by upstream? > >From udev-249-r2 and forward. As far as upstream goes, I don't know. I tried in the early days talking to people, but the "fog of politics" was too thick. I can try again. Having said that, I have assurances from people within Gentoo that they will help maintain those patches. I can also reach out to the openembedded people to inform them of our interest in these patches. I think musl has reached a sufficient weight that people beyond Gentoo are interested in making sure it works with linux systems. I was an early adopter of it into Gentoo, like 10 years ago now. At that time, plugging it into a linux distro was squeezing a square peg into a round whole. This is no longer the case. > >> Title: eudev retirement on 2022-01-01 >> Author: Anthony G. Basile >> Posted: 2021-08-xx >> Revision: 1 >> News-Item-Format: 2.0 >> Display-If-Installed: sys-fs/eudev >> >> sys-fs/udev is becoming the standard provider of udev on non-systemd >> (e.g. OpenRC) systems. Users of systemd will continue to use the udev >> services provided by the sys-apps/systemd package itself. > > Are there any concerns about upstream one day making udev and systemd > inseparable again? I can't address this. There are two issues: 1) making sure there is a device manager for musl. 2) making sure there is a device manager which is independent of systemd. My concern was the former, hence eudev. If one day I have to use systemd on a musl system, so be it. If anyone is concerned about the second issue, they are welcome to maintain eudev :P My life circumstances have changed and I don't have the time or will. > > >> The transition should be uneventful in most cases, but please read this >> item in full to understand some possible corner cases. >> >> eudev will be retired and removed from Gentoo on 2022-01-01. We will >> start masking eudev on 2021-10-01 and give people 3 months to prepare >> their transition. You should ensure that sys-fs/eudev is not in your >> world file by running >> >> emerge --deselect sys-fs/eudev >> >> in order for Portage to replace eudev with sys-fs/udev once the >> package.mask is in place. We fully support udev on musl, whereas uclibc >> will still have to rely on eudev before also being removed on 2022-01-01. >> >> **WARNING** >> >> If you happen to have an INSTALL_MASK with a blanket "*systemd*" glob, >> you will inevitably break your system. sys-fs/udev contains "systemd" in >> some of its filenames, hence a blanket filter rule will likely lead to a >> non-functional udev installation. > > Will an INSTALL_MASK of "/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd" cause any issues? I have not tested, but I think so since "systemd-" is used as a prefix for files installed by sys-fs/udev. > > > Couple of typos below: > >> Rationale >> >> The integration of udev into the systemd git repo introduced numerous >> problems for none-glibc systems, such as musl and uclibc. Several > > s/none-glibc/non-glibc/ > >> options were considered, and the one chosen was to fork and maintain >> udev independant of the rest of systemd. This was meant as a stop-gap > > s/independant/independent/ > >> solution until such time as the problems with systemd on musl had been >> resolved. This is now the case with patches provided by openembedded, >> and my original reason for maintaining eudev is no longer relevant. >> >> I am willing to transfer eudev to another umbrella organisation or Linux > > s/organisation/organization/ > >> distribution that is willing to continue its maintenance, but >> maintaining eudev cannot be done purely through proxy-maintaining
