Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On 2012.07.27 03:37, Duncan wrote: [snip] Not that such promises hold much credibility anyway... see the kde promise (from Aaron S when he was president of KDE e.v. so as credible a spokesperson as it gets) continued kde3 support as long as there were users. (AFAIK, at least gnome didn't make /that/ sort of promise in the leadup to gnome3. And no, AS cannot be properly argued to have been referring to others, like debian with its slow release cycles, as he was president of kde ev, not president of debian, or of the trinity project, which AFAIK didn't even exist at the time, and didn't specify support from OTHERS, not kde, so he was clearly speaking for kde, not for other entities.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman Duncan, You don't want to listen to Presidents too much. Look at other real life examples. Would you claim that the President of the Gentoo Foundation speaks for Gentoo? -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) Gentoo Foundation Inc. (President)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
Duncan wrote: the responsibility of whatever organization to either follow thru or repudiate, as it's the reputation and credibility of that organization on the line if they don't. I think it's unreasonable to expect any third party to accept responsibility for a receiver which is over-trusting a sender. Receivers must be intelligent and diligent to not be fooled by ignorant or outright malicious senders. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama) Society chose to make radio senders responsible by law. It's why there are jingles. As with any free speech medium, that is not so easy to enforce on the internet. Just like you don't want to over-trust the guy on the corner dressed up as a person of authority trying to disseminate whatever racist propaganda you don't want to believe everything on the internet. More than anything, please consider that what you have been told may simply be a lie, and be prepared to rewind and re-evaluate the world if you learn that this is the case. You may look like a fool for believing someone who was telling a lie, but you'll look like a hero for admitting that it happened and that you've learned something new. //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 09:49:04PM -0500, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: [ snip ] 9) Otherwise, at very minimum, they're failing the build udev pretty much the same as before ./configure make make install You fail to see the matter from their POV. They don't care (that much) about building, because the distributions they care about use binary prebuilt packages. In that sense, build udev pretty much the same as before is the holly trinity of ./configure; make; make install. Otherwise the part about package only what is necessary has not that much sense. Which again leads to the please, add a virtual/udev so the people using systemd don't need to built udev twice. Unless we add sys-apps/systemd to virtual/dev-manager. If we do that I don't see a need for virtual/udev. Also, I don't see how systemd users are building udev twice as it currently stands. William pgppskv1TmSsk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: [ snip ] 9) Otherwise, at very minimum, they're failing the build udev pretty much the same as before ./configure make make install You fail to see the matter from their POV. They don't care (that much) about building, because the distributions they care about use binary prebuilt packages. In that sense, build udev pretty much the same as before is the holly trinity of ./configure; make; make install. Otherwise the part about package only what is necessary has not that much sense. Which again leads to the please, add a virtual/udev so the people using systemd don't need to built udev twice. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:27:48 + (UTC) Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Michał Górny posted on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:15:10 +0200 as excerpted: On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:51:50 +0800 Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: When upstream moved the udev sources to the systemd repo, they promised that udev would continue to be able to be used separately from systemd. We should hold them to that promise. If they break their promise (as it seems they are bent on doing), then we should go ahead with the fork as discussed earlier. I'm sure other distros such as Debian and Slackware would be happy to join us in that effort. If we fork, then I would expect systemd to actually require its own udev which means that systemd would need to build it anyway. What's the point? Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no need to build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant. Who forces you to do otherwise? I really don't see what this thread is all about. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no need to build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant. I think this discussion is getting sidetracked. This didn't start out as a discussion about whether everybody should have to have systemd on their systems - the answer to that is no. The question is whether we should have a virtual for udev. Right now we're not sure how that is going to be packaged as far as systemd is concerned, so it is premature to make that decision. However, if we do decide to fork udev then that means we'd almost certainly need to have a virtual. At that point we'd have two different udev implementations in the tree - the fork and the one that comes bundled with systemd. Where things get dicey is if the two udev implementations start to diverge and packages need to behave differently depending on which one is installed - that would become a bit of a mess. Hopefully it won't come to that. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/07/12 06:40 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net
wrote:
Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no
need to build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant.
I think this discussion is getting sidetracked.
This didn't start out as a discussion about whether everybody
should have to have systemd on their systems - the answer to that
is no.
The question is whether we should have a virtual for udev. Right
now we're not sure how that is going to be packaged as far as
systemd is concerned, so it is premature to make that decision.
However, if we do decide to fork udev then that means we'd almost
certainly need to have a virtual. At that point we'd have two
different udev implementations in the tree - the fork and the one
that comes bundled with systemd.
Where things get dicey is if the two udev implementations start to
diverge and packages need to behave differently depending on which
one is installed - that would become a bit of a mess. Hopefully it
won't come to that.
..although it possibly could come to that, if the fork maintains
installation in /{bin,sbin,lib} while systemd-udev follows the
upstream move to /usr/{bin,sbin,lib}
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/9eUkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAFiwD/fAERfjHE0kHItPuBnCqH+669
flblkcc4/rMkAOQk8GUA/3MKU1j374JmcF9omXDFDJcq4SEJszKNL3tJGjgs0i0v
=dahJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 11/07/12 06:40 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net
wrote:
Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no
need to build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant.
I think this discussion is getting sidetracked.
This didn't start out as a discussion about whether everybody
should have to have systemd on their systems - the answer to that
is no.
The question is whether we should have a virtual for udev. Right
now we're not sure how that is going to be packaged as far as
systemd is concerned, so it is premature to make that decision.
However, if we do decide to fork udev then that means we'd almost
certainly need to have a virtual. At that point we'd have two
different udev implementations in the tree - the fork and the one
that comes bundled with systemd.
Where things get dicey is if the two udev implementations start to
diverge and packages need to behave differently depending on which
one is installed - that would become a bit of a mess. Hopefully it
won't come to that.
..although it possibly could come to that, if the fork maintains
installation in /{bin,sbin,lib} while systemd-udev follows the
upstream move to /usr/{bin,sbin,lib}
I don't know the devs' familiarity or positions on it (or the history
of it here), but it's potentially relevant if you're looking at udev
and the /{bin,sbin,lib} vs /usr/{bin,sbin,lib} split.
Walter Dnes (very active over in gentoo-user) has put a lot of work
into testing and documenting mdev as an alternative for udev. There's
been a good deal of success there, up to and including it working with
GNOME 2. The work's been documented on the wiki:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
--
:wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Walter Dnes (very active over in gentoo-user) has put a lot of work into testing and documenting mdev as an alternative for udev. There's been a good deal of success there, up to and including it working with GNOME 2. The work's been documented on the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev Unless you plan to stay on Gnome 2 forever or fork it you might want to consider that Gnome at some point is going to require systemd, let alone udev. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Not that mdev doesn't have its uses, but you're probably not going to be running future releases of Gnome on it. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Walter Dnes (very active over in gentoo-user) has put a lot of work into testing and documenting mdev as an alternative for udev. There's been a good deal of success there, up to and including it working with GNOME 2. The work's been documented on the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev Unless you plan to stay on Gnome 2 forever or fork it you might want to consider that Gnome at some point is going to require systemd, let alone udev. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Not that mdev doesn't have its uses, but you're probably not going to be running future releases of Gnome on it. I only mention Gnome 2 as an indicator of an example of system complexity support achieved. I don't know what's going to happen with future app interdependency with udev and systemd any more than anyone else. What's the generic laconic description of what udev and mdev do? Hotplug event handler? Is there a significant reason Gentoo shouldn't support selecting between such handlers? At the point where there's discussion between using systemd's in-tree copy of udev and a fork of udev, it seems appropriate to examine the possibility of a more general selection mechanism. Admittedly, with increased generality comes increased complexity. I don't know exactly where increased long-term complexity would come from, but my first guess would be redirecting where packages dependent on hooking the hotplug handler place their scripts. Anything else I can think of sounds more like an up-front effort cost, and not a long-term one. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:49:18AM -0400, Michael Mol wrote Walter Dnes (very active over in gentoo-user) has put a lot of work into testing and documenting mdev as an alternative for udev. There's been a good deal of success there, up to and including it working with GNOME 2. The work's been documented on the wiki: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev I'm now testing automount under mdev. No GUI required. I hope to have a wiki page up soon. As for GNOME and KDE, they're trying to become OS's in their own right. What can I say? There are a lot of alternative desktop environments and window managers. That's my target. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
