Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-12 Thread Tomas Mozes
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 8:51 PM 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
>
>
I had the opposite problem, udev failed to work with newer
udev-init-scripts so all my systems were migrated to eudev. Looking at the
bug report (https://bugs.gentoo.org/681586), some of the others had the
same experience.

It was a drop-in replacement for me, personally I don't care if I have udev
or eudev installed (if it works).

Tomas


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-11 Thread Piotr Karbowski
On 11/08/2020 15.38, Joonas Niilola wrote:
> 
> On 8/11/20 11:36 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> And I've already provided you one use case where udev doesn't work well
>> but eudev does.  I've also mentioned some historic issues I believe
>> should already be fixed but which did bit me in systemd-udev which was
>> never a problem in eudev.
>>
> Your systems seem to diverge a lot from what I'd consider as 'default'.
> You must already make many changes to them.
> 
> Before this thread I didn't even know/remember I was using eudev. It
> works and there doesn't seem to be any global issues related to it.
> However after reading this thread I'm a bit considered about the
> maintenance state of it.
> 
> Switched to udev. Simple as 'emerge -1 sys-fs/udev'. It works, didn't
> notice any difference.
> 
> If musl is a problem, to my knowledge musl has its own stage images, so
> why can't those stages use eudev while other ones defaulting to udev?

For the sake of science, I've also moved one of my systems to
sys-fs/udev and noticed a single incompatibility. There are few ways how
to disable the systemd/udev predictable NIC names, one of them is to
boot with net.ifnames=0, another is to mask rule file that trigger the
rename, as described on wiki[1]

Long story short, on eudev it's 80-net-name-slot.rules, on udev it's
80-net-setup-link.rules

The result was that my system booted without working network, as connman
started to poke around Ethernet interfaces (this is ok, I had
blacklisted eth*, not enp*), which then resulted in switching routing to
Ethernet that failed to get IP from DHCP, even that WiFi had a fully
working Internet access, so more like connman bug. (And yes, I am aware
that net.ifnames=0 will work on both)

This however shows two things: eudev is (no longer) drop-in replacement,
as some interfaces changed in upstream udev, which leads to second
thing, we need to have migration path, because even if(!) Gentoo change
default (I am not a fan of this idea really), then it might lead to
people doing fresh installation or reinstallation, migrating their
configs resulting in not working systems/working in other way that
previous one.

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev#Keep_classic_.27eth0.27_naming

-- Piotr.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-11 Thread Joonas Niilola

On 8/11/20 11:36 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> And I've already provided you one use case where udev doesn't work well
> but eudev does.  I've also mentioned some historic issues I believe
> should already be fixed but which did bit me in systemd-udev which was
> never a problem in eudev.
>
Your systems seem to diverge a lot from what I'd consider as 'default'.
You must already make many changes to them.

Before this thread I didn't even know/remember I was using eudev. It
works and there doesn't seem to be any global issues related to it.
However after reading this thread I'm a bit considered about the
maintenance state of it.

Switched to udev. Simple as 'emerge -1 sys-fs/udev'. It works, didn't
notice any difference.

If musl is a problem, to my knowledge musl has its own stage images, so
why can't those stages use eudev while other ones defaulting to udev?

-- juippis




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-11 Thread Jaco Kroon


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

> 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.

And I've already provided you one use case where udev doesn't work well
but eudev does.  I've also mentioned some historic issues I believe
should already be fixed but which did bit me in systemd-udev which was
never a problem in eudev.

But then again, with past experience I'm now one of those that refuse to
install systemd-udev and give it a twirl on production systems to see if
it's still an issue whereby I end up rebooting servers on a weekly basis.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8yWHEACgkQCC3Esa/3
7p6w1wf/clHZuUn3KgCheQQvEyBSBf3IEmXgN+ejtxGNn+cyK4p6A7j3dU6n9ain
aPcL4zGOkixHpEwhz2bQAIljEtHI2wYhBYBv7+c9mUEmbSp7xhwZUvZd1a69YUk1
cEclzHGlKQwcRFqyrGIOLk6/iuwr8REavd1EwcLsrXeuCI7xukFRdHeOideGCztI
4ziK6QZaN/BZ1ZPV1yzdheBq2E0tAiMRG2gKiuNopBEETc+PpegUPsk6T4dnmEZV
EGG3LlzpufgPUF+qymzyRiT94i7azebfO17hOzJ4cZJXi7Lz9dzUTrxJvpYknbzp
XruDKuoRBSPp5OQ2ZeO/0Q0L8WILZg==
=Q6Bl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-11 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 11.08.2020 kell 07:44, kirjutas Michał Górny:
> > 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.

Having forgotten about that (even when being directly involved in it),
it doesn't look all that bad in this example on hindsight.

Upstream issue tracker got a notification of it (being unusable for
mutter) in https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/173 on 2019-05-12.
It was fixed upstream eudev on 2019-05-19, and the fix was released
into eudev-3.2.8, released on 2019-05-20.

But Gentoo virtual/libudev-232 still claimed >=eudev-1.3 is fine for
it, while mutter had to depend on >=virtual/libudev-228.
So eudev-3.2.8 already available in main tree was fine for mutter, but
there was no virtual/libudev-228, which would ensure >=eudev-3.2.8 and
that eudev version wasn't stable. So a quick fix would have been to add
a virtual/libudev-228 too in ~arch, which would have given a way to
ensure 228 by eudev-3.2.8, but this seems to have been overlooked,
thinking that a new eudev release is needed. This was compounded by no
(rather) quick replies from eudev maintainers to advise what to do with
the virtual. Eventually eudev-3.2.9 ended up being what is required, as
it provides claimed compatibility with libudev-243, which is new enough
for virtual/libudev-232.
So after initial Gentoo problem report[1] on 2019-09-11, and the
virtual/libudev bug report[2] on 2019-10-12, it all got solved by
stabilization request[3] of eudev-3.2.9 (and virtual/libudev restoring
eudev as provider) on 2019-10-28 with main arches dealing with it the
same day. ~arch was fixed on 2019-10-26, 1.5 months after initial bug
report, which per the above actually turns out actually not been an
~arch problem, but ~arch mutter mixed with stable eudev. Affected
mutter version was only stabilized in 2019-12-08.

So virtual/libudev dropping eudev as provider for this forced stable
tree to be fixed to be technically correct.
I think the main takeaway point is that on virtual/libudev version
bumps, the eudev claimed versions need to be checked as well, and the
matching >= dep for eudev figured out from the start. What each eudev
version claims as the libudev version can be seen in the UDEV_VERSION
variable set at top of configure.ac.

Personally I believe the first choice for virtual/udev should be
sys-fs/udev instead of sys-fs/eudev for our users, as it's more
maintained upstream, but don't have any personal stake in it as my udev
provider is systemd.

Various changes in udev upstream that wouldn't be in eudev (yet) would
be dealing with rule changes and bug fixes, which aren't relevant to
those people that aren't affected by these bugs, but very relevant if
you are affected by them.

I don't think it would be impossible to have musl-supporting out of the
box udev out of systemd tarball, if there was someone actually working
with upstream systemd on it in a constructive manner, effectively being
the musl support maintainer as part of upstream community.


Mart


References:
1. https://bugs.gentoo.org/694014
2. https://bugs.gentoo.org/697550
3. https://bugs.gentoo.org/698698


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-10 Thread Michał Górny
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

2020-08-10 Thread Michał Górny
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

2020-08-10 Thread Benda Xu
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

2020-08-10 Thread Joshua Kinard
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

2020-08-10 Thread Rich Freeman
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

2020-08-10 Thread Joshua Kinard
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

2020-08-10 Thread Piotr Karbowski
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

2020-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
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

2020-08-10 Thread Roy Bamford
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

2020-08-10 Thread Alexis Ballier
-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

2020-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
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

2020-08-10 Thread William Hubbs
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

2020-08-10 Thread Rich Freeman
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

2020-08-10 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
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

2020-08-10 Thread Michał Górny
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

2020-08-10 Thread Michał Górny
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

2020-08-10 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
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

2020-08-10 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> 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


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-09 Thread Joshua Kinard
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?

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.

-- 
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

2020-08-09 Thread Benda Xu
William Hubbs  writes:

>> William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
>>  Is there some problem with eudev?  Is it actively maintained and
>> generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
>> intentionally don't want to accept)?
>  
>  It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I
>  don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What
>  I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago,
>  and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev.

What feature do you miss from systemd-udev that has been added within a
year?

udev should be a stable part of the system, I would rather have new
Gentoo users install something stable by default than a moving target.

Benda


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:22:44PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > What do people think?
> > 
> > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?
>  
>  Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away
>  from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As
>  already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable
>  without systemd they would have by now.
> 
> > What do you expect from this change?

> > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
> > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev?

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.

Thanks,

William



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-09 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:22 AM William Hubbs  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > What do people think?
> >
> > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?
>
>  Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away
>  from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As
>  already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable
>  without systemd they would have by now.
>
> > What do you expect from this change?
>
>  I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community
>  uses for device management.
>

"I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community uses
for init management." So we should make the systemd profile the default? :)


>
> > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
> > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use
> sys-fs/udev?
>
> Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It
> was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages.
> It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd
> consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd.
>

You asked me on IRC "how do I convince people" and part of that is to make
it easy to agree with your argument! Asking me to read a bunch of crap
isn't going to make me want to agree; its going to make me say "your
argument is poorly formed, please go away."

 - Link to the things you want me to read.
 - Summarize them so I don't have to read a 100 message long thread from 5
years ago.
 - Make an argument!

---
"I think we picked eudev as the default because of a concern that udev
would eventually require systemd for operation, you can see this from these
mailing list posts: X, Y, Z."
"The above concern has not manifested itself and I believe udev will
continue to not strictly require systemd init for various reasons (mention
list of cases here."
"Therefore I think we should change the default udev provider from eudev to
udev in the default profiles."
---

This would be what I believe is a understandable argument (provided we had
the links to the previous material.) I'm not saying I agree[0] with it; but
I'd at least understand why you want the change to happen.


> Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are
> cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am
> saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default
> distro wide.

William
>
>
[0] I expect that most users who want udev actually also want systemd and
so will simply select the systemd profile itself, and that this choice is
immaterial to most users; so I am for keeping the status quo here.


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-09 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > What do people think?
> 
> Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?
 
 Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away
 from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As
 already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable
 without systemd they would have by now.

> What do you expect from this change?
 
 I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community
 uses for device management.

> Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
> default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev?

Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It
was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages.
It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd
consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd.

Years later, this has not happened, so to be honest, I think it is time
to admit that we , as a council and distro, over reacted and undo that
over reaction.

Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are
cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am
saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default
distro wide.

William



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-09 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> What do people think?

Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?

What do you expect from this change?

Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev?


-- 
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

2020-08-09 Thread Gordon Pettey
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:57 PM William Hubbs  wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> > William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
> >  Is there some problem with eudev?  Is it actively maintained and
> > generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
> > intentionally don't want to accept)?
>
>  It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I
>  don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What
>  I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago,
>  and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev.
>
> > I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the
> > two at this point.  For the longest time the only ones I was aware of
> > were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default
> > persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not
> > made (by default) in eudev.  Perhaps at this point there are other
> > differences.
>
> The only other one I know of is if you aren't using glibc udev will not
> compile, but I'm not even sure that is an issue still.
>
> The way I see it, we switched away from udev because of a fear that
> never materialized, and I'm not convinced that we have enough time to
> keep it in feature parity with udev which it needs to be to be the
> default provider.


Name the missing features in eudev.


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 21:17 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from 
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.

Really?  And I've thought that the primary reason was that udev upstream
has removed the 'repeatedly bash the rules until they succeed' feature
that required people to actually fix things.

-- 
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

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
Hi Rich,

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 06:22:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford  wrote:
> >
> > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> > systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> >
> > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> 
> So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
> any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason
> to base the decision on.  IMO it was paranoid years ago when people
> first brought it up.  Now it is even moreso considering that years
> have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed.  If
> their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to
> mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use
> (e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least
> they would still be talking about it.
 
 I couldn't agree with you more on this point. I think if they were
 going to make udev impossible to use without systemd they would have
 gotten around to that by now. And, yes, the fear of this was the
 primary reason for the switch when the council voted to change it.

> William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
>  Is there some problem with eudev?  Is it actively maintained and
> generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
> intentionally don't want to accept)?
 
 It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I
 don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What
 I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago,
 and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev.

> I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the
> two at this point.  For the longest time the only ones I was aware of
> were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default
> persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not
> made (by default) in eudev.  Perhaps at this point there are other
> differences.

The only other one I know of is if you aren't using glibc udev will not
compile, but I'm not even sure that is an issue still.

The way I see it, we switched away from udev because of a fear that
never materialized, and I'm not convinced that we have enough time to
keep it in feature parity with udev which it needs to be to be the
default provider.

I am going to echo again. I am not talking about removing eudev from the
tree, so you would be able to use it if you want. I'm just suggesting
that we should start new systems out with udev.

William



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:48 PM Roy Bamford  wrote:
>
> On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> > > systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> > > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> > >
> > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the
> > road
> > > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> >
> > So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
> > any of my Gentoo hosts either way, ..
>
> I don't have a dog in this fight. Being old and cynical, I have static /dev,
> so I use neither.
>
> I'm interested in what's changed since the Council decision [1] to make
> eudev the default.
>

And you'll note that this is the one line in your post I didn't quote,
because it was about the only thing that you said which made sense.  I
wasn't in any way criticizing that point, and basically asked the same
question myself.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford 
> wrote:
> >
> > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> > systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> >
> > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the
> road
> > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> 
> So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
> any of my Gentoo hosts either way, ..
[snip]
> 
> -- 
> Rich
> 

Rich,

I don't have a dog in this fight. Being old and cynical, I have static /dev,
so I use neither.

I'm interested in what's changed since the Council decision [1] to make 
eudev the default.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/573922#c28

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64

pgp8OZnGNadvH.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Jaco Kroon


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

It actually works is enough reason for me.  Was forced to migrate a
> bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
> systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
> lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations.
> Mostly on systems with LVM.
>
> > I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this
> > proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites
> > for eudev, just making it the default for new installs.

It would affect new installations.  But yes, we can switch it back to
eudev post install.

>
> I'm completely against the proposal.
>
>  I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
>  to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> 
>  We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
>  eudev. What's changed?
> >>>
> >>> If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> >>> need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> >>> a case for it being the default.
>
> Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.  Might be
> configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
> configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
> commands as simple as "lvs".  eudev in coparison just works.
>
> >  I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible
> >  configuration dependence.

Ok, simplest mechanism we've found:

Install a system with at least one LV partition and leave some space
available in the VG, then do:

term 1:  watch lvs

term 2:  while true; do lvcreate -L1G -s -ntemp_snap /dev/${vg}/${lv} &&
lvremove /dev/${vg}/temp_snap; done

Give it anywhere from two two five minutes.  Can be hours sometimes. 
But eventually it does die.  Can't say the same for eudev.

>
> > When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup?

In some cases rebooting is the only way to recover.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vJyEACgkQCC3Esa/3
7p4eewf/bOXgnx4n30HUZnTmvhyjC4F2MTc8bOwYj45t+UMeGoIN8C+GMHxWMGvG
NQpoK2hkY8egykCbuO4rSBwV9YS/naAiAZEcEXCPdcAUgV2FxJSGWKCLDLfTiflg
vXCLpd8ybxVbVhEO5XU8K4jTc9fc4peY/4ZVK0Lhl80rzWLf/yrc9+IurBZE+0g0
GXpHxNa6e2AZWPFyNXMu83fatlyOZpy/WXE7owb+yLPwTJPs30W9OLFQ6lWXSLdx
FGyLBh8vFn9BExF3IS1ZgKYIBRrH45AazMNV3+fvO+aZX/6UfXDID/JDjXHdq3bl
awMSVX40kYbgskCkOwf5DreCrs7nBw==
=ROIf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford  wrote:
>
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
>
> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.

So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason
to base the decision on.  IMO it was paranoid years ago when people
first brought it up.  Now it is even moreso considering that years
have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed.  If
their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to
mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use
(e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least
they would still be talking about it.

William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
 Is there some problem with eudev?  Is it actively maintained and
generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
intentionally don't want to accept)?

I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the
two at this point.  For the longest time the only ones I was aware of
were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default
persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not
made (by default) in eudev.  Perhaps at this point there are other
differences.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:38:36PM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> >> On 2020.08.08 19:51, 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> William,
> >>
> >> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> >> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> >> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> >  
> > Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
> > and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
> > Udev  runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
> > is necessary for most of Gentoo.
> 
> It actually works is enough reason for me.  Was forced to migrate a
> bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
> systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
> lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations. 
> Mostly on systems with LVM.
 
I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this
proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites
for eudev, just making it the default for new installs.

> I'm completely against the proposal.
> 
> >> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> >> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> >>
> >> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
> >> eudev. What's changed?
> >
> > If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> > need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> > a case for it being the default.
> 
> Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.  Might be
> configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
> configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
> commands as simple as "lvs".  eudev in coparison just works.
 
 I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible
 configuration dependence.

When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup?

William

> >
> > Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
> > person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.
> 
> Yes, this is a problem.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Jaco
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3
> 7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ
> u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa
> Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb
> IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W
> c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY
> G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg==
> =rF5/
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Jaco Kroon


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> On 2020.08.08 19:51, 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> William,
>>
>> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
>> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
>> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
>  
> Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
> and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
> Udev  runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
> is necessary for most of Gentoo.

It actually works is enough reason for me.  Was forced to migrate a
bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations. 
Mostly on systems with LVM.

I'm completely against the proposal.

>> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
>> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
>>
>> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
>> eudev. What's changed?
>
> If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> a case for it being the default.

Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.  Might be
configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
commands as simple as "lvs".  eudev in coparison just works.

>
> Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
> person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.

Yes, this is a problem.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3
7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ
u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa
Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb
IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W
c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY
G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg==
=rF5/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread William Hubbs
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2020.08.08 19:51, 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> William,
> 
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from 
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
 
Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
Udev  runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
is necessary for most of Gentoo.

> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> 
> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became 
> eudev. What's changed?

If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
a case for it being the default.

Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.

William



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2020.08.08 19:51, 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
> 
> 

William,

With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from 
systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.

I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.

We had this discussion several years ago when the default became 
eudev. What's changed?

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64

pgpb6AvBiQ28_.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev

2020-08-08 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new
> systems from eudev to udev.

Well... maybe you could somewhat expand on the why?

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfri...@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer 
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.