Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 10:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:31:28 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Patrick Lauer > wrote: > > Ohey, > > > > I've opened a bug at: > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > > > The idea here is to change the order of the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/17/2016 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by >> sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was >> obvious. > > About the only

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/17/2016 04:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > [snip] > > If Lennart's single statement from 2014 is a reason to use eudev > instead of systemd-udevd, my statement from today is a more > important reason not to use eudev. > That's kind of a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Michał Górny schrieb: systemd and udev share the same codebase. You can no longer build udev without systemd. udev is only a sub-project of systemd now, hence the name "systemd-udevd". Of course, sure. But since you seem not to be able to understand basics: this *does not* mean Lennart is the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by > sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was > obvious. About the only "system-breaking" change I'm aware of in udev over

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/17/2016 11:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Michał Górny schrieb: With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > >> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of > >> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. > > He's lead developer of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

o-dev@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao <r...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> >> >> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Ben Kohler <bkoh...@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:01:32 To: <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev prov

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >>> >>> >>> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> >> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on >> Gentoo. systemd-udev does not. Consequently, eudev has

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ben Kohler wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for >> virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote: > > > I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for > virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically everyone on > the list thinks eudev is the best choice. > I think a lot of us appreciate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:52 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:00:27 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile >> wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 17/02/16 13:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: >>> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of >>> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. >> He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 >>> Chí-Thanh Christopher

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Michał Górny schrieb: With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd codebase which has specific maintainers. systemd and udev share the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:09:57 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Michał Górny schrieb: > >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together > >> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): > >> > >> "we will

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > >>> On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: >>>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao napisał(a): >>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile >> wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Michał Górny schrieb: In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options: a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:58:51 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 > Richard Yao wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote: >> >> If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the >> logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using > kdbus/bus1, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > >>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using > >>> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have > >>> to do the same thing anyway.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the > logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what > the Linux ecosystem will be using going forward. > Uh, if we cared solely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao napisał(a): >On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: >>> >>> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also >work >>> on an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Dnia 17 lutego 2016 09:17:37 CET, Patrick Lauer napisał(a): >On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >> > * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there >won't be > any user-visible changes > > * udev upstream strongly discourages

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be any user-visible changes * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd) since at least 2012 (see for example:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > >> Ohey, > >> > >> I've opened a bug at: > >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> >> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work >> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. >> >> some of the criticism given here are

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> Ohey, >> >> I've opened a bug at: >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 >> >> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. >> For

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/08/2016 04:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Ohey, > > I've opened a bug at: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922 > > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev. > For existing installs this has zero impact. > For stage3 this would mean that eudev is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by > > > systemd

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: > > > Because certainly > > > project that is created plainly for political reasons is better. > > > Because it will certainly be technically better if people have to > > > focus on copying regular udev maintainers and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Alexis Ballier schrieb: If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely old considering all the flux that has been around kbus. OpenRC itself

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by > > systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they > > made around here. > You

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Brian Dolbec schrieb: Thank you for bringing this information to the forefront of this debate. So, is it not better for us Gentoo-er's that wish to not install systemd, to set the default non-systemd udev to eudev. Note that I am not advocating for or against this move. I was just pointing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:26:46 -0500 "Anthony G. Basile" wrote: > On 2/16/16 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer > > wrote: > >> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging > >> squirrel,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:09:23 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: > > > > This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to > > *running* udev without systemd as opposed to building

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/16/16 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging >> squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other >> providers will continue being

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to *running* udev > without systemd as opposed to building (which upstream already made > impossible). > > Here is the exact wording: > "Unless the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:33:55 +0100 Michał Górny wrote: [...] > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by > systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they > made around here. > > So, yes, we should definitely switch to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging > squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other > providers will continue being listed and available. The change affects > none

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it > > require systemd. Quoting Lennart: > > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: >>> I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require >>> systemd. Quoting Lennart: >>> "You need the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require > > systemd. Quoting Lennart: > > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:53:48 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > William Hubbs schrieb: > > Maybe FUD is the incorrect way to put it, but I think us doing > > something about it at this point is definitely premature since > > KDBUS is no where near ready to go --

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Alexis Ballier schrieb: I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require systemd. Quoting Lennart: "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and handle activation. That's not a trivial task. For us, that's what sytemd does in PID 1. You'd need to come

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:34:20 +0100 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was > > more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being > > absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Sorry about the messed up quoting, somehow enigmail and format=flowed do not work well together.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:34:20PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alexis Ballier schrieb: > > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more > > to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by > > systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Alexis Ballier schrieb: It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at some point". Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:45:41 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > > > William Hubbs

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15 Feb 2016 13:13, Francesco Riosa wrote: > Also, why, why people using systemd ARE interested in this thread? > You should not be interested at all. in case you're directing at me, i do not use systemd anywhere -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-14 21:23 GMT+01:00 Mike Frysinger : > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > William Hubbs wrote: > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can still be >> extracted and run standalone from systemd. > > and even with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:10:07 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote: >On 02/09/2016 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric >> wrote: >>> And a lot of Gentoo is surprisingly simple: Like our use of bash >>> scripts for recipies to build things,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/15/2016 01:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 William Hubbs > wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote:

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15/02/16 05:28, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote: >> I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate >> 'udev' > > i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i > don't think it changes my point. -mike > It wasn't necessarily

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote: > I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate 'udev' i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i don't think it changes my point. -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 15/02/16 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > >> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > >> > >> that's not true, nor is it the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the > > > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

Why does any discussion revolving around systemd always turn out like this? For the record, I'm an OpenRC user and intend on keeping it that way for as long as i can. In that case i need udev to keep things working the way i want them to. So in the case that the systemd team makes udev

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer >> wrote: >> > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change > > > the virtual back. One-line change. > > > > Which is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/14/2016 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 >> Rich Freeman wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer >>> wrote: If, for

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and > develops against. > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. I honestly don't understand this argument that pops over and over. No

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the virtual

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > Systemd users/developers should not mind what the default is as they > are forced to use one variant anyway, these users/developers should > not force their opinion upon others. Posting an opinion on a list isn't forcing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 22:31, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and > > develops against. > > > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > > I honestly don't understand this

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 21:31, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > If, for any reason, eudev should

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. the problem is the project only has one pair of eyes. people have said all sorts of stuff but really, there's only one relevant

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being executed. > -mike > correct and i've been careful with libudev. anyhow, can we divert this away from udev/eudev. mike

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > > that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. can you list the projects that utilize eudev ? the repo doesn't that i can see. it

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the > > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being executed. > > correct and i've been careful with libudev. > > anyhow,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. >> >> that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. > > can you list the projects that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer > wrote: > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change > > the virtual back. One-line change. > > Which is precisely the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/09/2016 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > >> And a lot of Gentoo is surprisingly simple: Like our use of bash >> scripts for recipies to build things, like using rsync to deploy/relay >> not just those recipies, but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/09/2016 10:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 18:27, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >> all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo >> community. outside of this community i get praise. > > In case my earlier messages stating a desire to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 02/14/2016 05:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the >> virtual back. One-line change. > Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the > virtual back. One-line change. Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the default to eudev in the first place. -- Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 10/02/16 08:46 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius > wrote: > >> Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that >> external tools already do this just fine. That's another >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that external > tools already do this just fine. That's another difference, though > not one that matters programmatically. That said, the network-link > setup was added

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:37:28AM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote: > Wow, that's actually pretty great news. That's enough 'momentum' to > maybe maintain a smaller ecosystem free of any particular init-system > preference! Thanks for sharing! I wouldn't call that much "momentum" since it's about

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 2/9/16 7:43 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: >> >> Given that the push for kdbus is more a political API move than >> anything, I can see eudev sticking to the current interface and >> working just fine. > > I doubt udev is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > I also mask all systemd files that somehow find their way into my > system thanks to your past decisions as systemd supporter, instead of > installing these only when systemd USE flag is set and adding openrc > USE flag

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Michał Górny wrote: > I'm strongly against this, because: agreed. i also don't see any reasons in Patrick's e-mail to suggest the current default is inadequate. "i don't like upstream" isn't relevant. -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 9 February 2016 at 16:09, Rich Freeman wrote: > There will always be a > "poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux > without sysfs or some other obscure practice. This seems to be an attempt at painting the "stick with eudev" model as an "old

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On 9 February 2016 at 18:27, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo > community. outside of this community i get praise. In case my earlier messages stating a desire to exercise much caution gave the wrong impression, I

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/09/2016 05:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Daniel Campbell > wrote: >> >> Perhaps that's because each of those things should not actually >> be considered the same object type. That sort of

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: > > On 02/09/2016 05:44 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > If you go with systemd, you have to like or agree with > every change they make or every design decision on everything. There is a bit of irony in suggesting this in a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: > Well, if we're going to force it to be in the stage3, I guess this > boils down to whether eudev or udev is the better nano. "Nicht alles was hinkt ist ein Vergleich", as we say in German. Emacs has a flexible extension language, whereas nano uses

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/09/2016 01:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 9 February 2016 at 18:27, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: >> all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo >> community. outside of this community i get praise. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

2016-02-09 13:17 GMT+01:00 Rich Freeman : > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric > wrote: > > > > A pure udev system is in comparison, much simpler than a systemd system. > > I don't buy that at all. In systemd you have a unified object model >

  1   2   >