subject:"Re\: \[gentoo\-dev\] udev\-ng\? \(Was\: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012\)"

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
 wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
>> Hmm, pretty cool! Then I can create a stupid project, put it on gentoo
>> infra and claim it as being Gentoo sponsored. Good to know, thanks!
>>
>
> Just to make it clear: I'm not saying that any of the people involved
> with udev-ng/eudev/whatever, or even the project itself, is stupid. I
> was just interpreting rich0's answer.
>

However, your interpretation is perfectly correct - from GLEP 39:

Note that this GLEP does not provide for a way for the community at
large to block a new project, even if the comments are wholly
negative.

Arguably if somebody wants to be disruptive they can accomplish a lot
more by trolling the lists than by starting projects.  Judging by the
general traffic on -dev, I'd say that everybody figured that out a
long time ago.

Oh, while anybody can start a project, the fact is that they all still
fall under either the Council or Trustees, and they must abide by the
policies set by both.  Developers who cause trouble are still subject
to Devrel.

As somebody pointed out to me in email - the barriers to becoming a
dev are high, but once you're in you have fairly free reign.  I'd like
to think that most of us would use that for the benefit of the
community.  What I can tell you for sure is that no amount of rules or
bureaucracy is going to solve people problems - at best they just
stifle them, and everything else.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
 wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
>>  wrote:
>>> Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
>>> being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and create
>>> a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any review of the
>>> council. I agree that it can exists in the Github account, or even in
>>> our own infrastructure, but say that Gentoo supports it without a
>>> previous analysis of the council is wrong IMHO.
>>
>> In practice there is no difference.  About the only "sponsorship"
>> Gentoo projects get most of the time is hosting, and considering that
>> they stuck this one on Github they're not really even getting that.
>>
>> That said, I see no reason why this project would be any less eligible
>> for other forms of sponsorship than other projects are, assuming that
>> somebody can make a compelling pitch for the Trustees.  The Foundation
>> is aimed to further Gentoo in particular in FOSS in general, so
>> obviously we don't spend a lot on individual projects.  When we do it
>> tends to be in proportion to how it benefits the entire community, and
>> I'm sure that community sentiments would be balanced accordingly.
>> However, there aren't "real" projects and "wanna-be" projects in
>> Gentoo.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>
> Hmm, pretty cool! Then I can create a stupid project, put it on gentoo
> infra and claim it as being Gentoo sponsored. Good to know, thanks!
>

Just to make it clear: I'm not saying that any of the people involved
with udev-ng/eudev/whatever, or even the project itself, is stupid. I
was just interpreting rich0's answer.

Do whatever you people want, I'll stop caring about this topic.

Best Regards,

-- 
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Peter Stuge

Rich Freeman wrote:
> > I think that there's a big difference about any developer
> > being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and
> > create a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any
> > review of the council. I agree that it can exists in the Github
> > account, or even in our own infrastructure, but say that Gentoo
> > supports it without a previous analysis of the council is wrong
> > IMHO.
> 
> In practice there is no difference.

This thread demonstrates that there was significant *perceived*
difference, and as has been pointed out Greg was just the voice
of the internets. (Thanks Greg!)

In practise, it is a git repo with commits by a few individuals.

But because of where the git repo is located, because of the contents
of the commits, and perhaps also because of misunderstanding, it was
*perceived* to be something other than what it is.

I think it's important to be attentive when such misperception
occurs, both to be able to stop it from occuring again in the future,
and to attempt clarification of things as quickly as possible.

> About the only "sponsorship" Gentoo projects get most of the time
> is hosting, and considering that they stuck this one on Github
> they're not really even getting that.

The Gentoo brand is a lot more than infra's lovely hosting.

> That said, I see no reason why this project would be any less
> eligible for other forms of sponsorship than other projects are,
> assuming that somebody can make a compelling pitch for the Trustees.

I don't think the issue was ever with eligibility, but with how
$internet perceived that the Gentoo brand was acting.

Yes, that's layers of fail, but the world isn't big on facts. In the
end the brand that we all know and love got an unneccessary new dent,
and the only thing we can do is to learn from that, to try to avoid
that it happens again.

> However, there aren't "real" projects and "wanna-be" projects in Gentoo.

Is this a good thing? I think both yes and no. A case could certainly
be made for having sunrise projects, like there are sunrise ebuilds.

//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM, William Hubbs  wrote:
> So here is the question I'll pose. Is it worth all of that extra
> work for us to support separate /usr correctly, or should we just tell
> everyone to start using initramfs or, if they don't want to use
> initramfs and they are just using plain filesystems, the
> busybox[sep-usr] option once all of the tools are stable?

My two cents:

My thoughts - no, it isn't worth all that work.  However, I'm not the
one doing the work, so I'll let those who are judge for themselves
whether it is worth it, and I'm not going to knock volunteer work done
to benefit the Gentoo community.  I hope they succeed.  I also hope
they don't diverge so far that it affects other packages, and I trust
everybody to work together to prevent that.

As far as separate /usr goes and all that, I just see this as one more
option to offer our users alongside mdev, initramfs, an early boot
script, or whatever.  Add it to the news item, and let the users
decide what they want to do.  As far as I'm concerned eudev is just
another option like systemd, and if at some point in the future a
majority of the community/devs are behind changing the defaults, then
we can consider that.  Otherwise, stick it in news items, docs, wiki
pages, or even the handbook as makes sense.  Gentoo is about choice.

Would I rather see some of these devs working on something else, like
my favorite package?  Maybe.  But, if so I'm better off sending them
an email to try to persuade them, or throwing money at them.  What we
ought not to do is knock their work.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
>  wrote:
>> Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
>> being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and create
>> a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any review of the
>> council. I agree that it can exists in the Github account, or even in
>> our own infrastructure, but say that Gentoo supports it without a
>> previous analysis of the council is wrong IMHO.
>
> In practice there is no difference.  About the only "sponsorship"
> Gentoo projects get most of the time is hosting, and considering that
> they stuck this one on Github they're not really even getting that.
>
> That said, I see no reason why this project would be any less eligible
> for other forms of sponsorship than other projects are, assuming that
> somebody can make a compelling pitch for the Trustees.  The Foundation
> is aimed to further Gentoo in particular in FOSS in general, so
> obviously we don't spend a lot on individual projects.  When we do it
> tends to be in proportion to how it benefits the entire community, and
> I'm sure that community sentiments would be balanced accordingly.
> However, there aren't "real" projects and "wanna-be" projects in
> Gentoo.
>
> Rich
>

Hmm, pretty cool! Then I can create a stupid project, put it on gentoo
infra and claim it as being Gentoo sponsored. Good to know, thanks!

-- 
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
 wrote:
> Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
> being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and create
> a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any review of the
> council. I agree that it can exists in the Github account, or even in
> our own infrastructure, but say that Gentoo supports it without a
> previous analysis of the council is wrong IMHO.

In practice there is no difference.  About the only "sponsorship"
Gentoo projects get most of the time is hosting, and considering that
they stuck this one on Github they're not really even getting that.

That said, I see no reason why this project would be any less eligible
for other forms of sponsorship than other projects are, assuming that
somebody can make a compelling pitch for the Trustees.  The Foundation
is aimed to further Gentoo in particular in FOSS in general, so
obviously we don't spend a lot on individual projects.  When we do it
tends to be in proportion to how it benefits the entire community, and
I'm sure that community sentiments would be balanced accordingly.
However, there aren't "real" projects and "wanna-be" projects in
Gentoo.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread William Hubbs

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:48:33AM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 11:13 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> > On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > >> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
> > >> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
> > >> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
> > >> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
> > >> is no need for this one.
> > >
> > > You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?
> > 
> > Exactly what I had in mind. So far I see bunch of regressions (back to 
> > bundling code :() in the "eudev" repository and more it deviates from 
> > the orig. upstream the less attractive it's looking...
> > 
> > What should be done, at most, is to cherry-pick and revert the things 
> > that killed the sep. /usr support, put it behind an USE flag to the 
> > current udev's ebuild, perhaps IUSE="+vanilla", and be done with it.
> > 
> > - Samuli
> > 
> > 
> 
> +1
> 
> @eudev maintainers, Wouldn't that be possible?

Anything is possible.

The issue right now is the relationship between ryao and the udev team
(at least me).

I don't want to bore the list with the details, but ryao misunderstood
some action (or lack of action) on my part as ignoring him.

Samuli, myself and robbat2 are the udev team for gentoo. What I do not
know is if ryao spoke to the other team members, but what I do know is
that a private irc conversation months ago is fine, but, from my
perspective, it would have made sure that I didn't lose track of things
if bugs had been filed, and they were not, so that is the only reason I
lost track of his concerns.

I asked him several times about joining the udev team, but for whatever
reason, he feels that starting this fork was the best option, and he
has told me he can't stop it.

I'm with gregkh on the  separate /usr issue though. It isn't just udev
that has issues when /usr is split off. I think the myth that udev is
the only culprit came out of the April 2012 council meeting.

I'm pretty sure that what I'm about to say will be dismissed by the
supporters of separate /usr without an initramfs or without using the
sep-usr option we now have in our busybox ebuild, but in truth,
splitting / from /usr is broken another way that we have been ignoring
for a decade.

We have been getting around part of the issue by moving shared libraries
from /usr/lib* to /lib* and using gen_usr_ldscript to make sure the
linker knows what we have done with them.

The other breakage is any program that reads data from /usr/share does
not work right if / and /usr are split and that program starts in early boot.

I don't know what else would have to be fixed off the top of my head,
but  I can tell you that locales/nls are broken for early boot without
an initramfs if / and /usr are split.

Basically, if we want separate /usr without an initramfs and we want to
do it right, we have to create /share and start copying things from
/usr/share/* to /share/* and patching code to support reading both locations,
starting with gettext/NLS support.

So here is the question I'll pose. Is it worth all of that extra
work for us to support separate /usr correctly, or should we just tell
everyone to start using initramfs or, if they don't want to use
initramfs and they are just using plain filesystems, the
busybox[sep-usr] option once all of the tools are stable?

I used separate /usr for a long time here without an initramfs, but
after studying why this was broken, I switched over to an initramfs, and
have been running one for months, because that seems to be the cleanest
way forward.

There is one other issue right now,
and I don't know what util-linux is doing with it since our bug hasn't
been updated in some time [1].

William

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=410605

pgp7ju7SI1WgL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld

Hey guys,

Just read through this entire thread, and one concern still rings loud
and clear -- what is the purpose of this fork?

The various responses I've read so far are something like:

- Because Linus yelled a lot when udev/Kay broke firmware loading.

Except both Linus and the udev people fixed the problem. Linus added
direct filesystem loading in the kernel [1], and I'm told the udev
folks also fixed their hang and async situation.

- Because udev requires systemd.

Except the patches to build udev without systemd are not very large.

- Because of kmod.

Still required for things, even if its indirectly removed.

- Because we want to have separate /usr working again.

Will udev alone actually fix the separate /usr functionality? What's
required here?

Don't bother responding to the above bullet points, even if they're
garbage. Instead, read on to what I'm really after.

In general, what I'm looking for is some kind of well-written,
well-thought out mission statement, that clearly says "okay here are
the issues, here's generally how we're going to solve them, and here's
why you should feel good about this being a Gentoo project."

At the moment, I haven't found anything like this, and the fact that
it's an official Gentoo project consuming the time and hearts of
intelligent developers makes me concerned, since I'm in the dark as to
its purpose and motivation.

All I'm asking is some kind of coherent mission statement. If the
aggregated responses to the bullet points above are inaccurate, don't
bother responding to those inaccuracies on a point by point basis or
bikeshed on them, or whatever happens on mailing lists. Just, please,
tell everybody what exactly you want to do, why you want to do it, and
what this is all about.

Thanks a lot,
Jason

[1]
http://git.zx2c4.com/linux/commit/drivers/base/firmware_class.c?id=abb139e75c2cdbb955e840d6331cb5863e409d0e

--
Jason A. Donenfeld
Gentoo Linux Security
zx...@gentoo.org
www.zx2c4.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
>  wrote:
>> If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some
>> disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by
>> Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the opposite and
>> actually advertise the Gentoo sponsorship with the sentence "This is a
>> Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with
>> openrc." in their README
>>
>> I don't think that someone can claim this sponsorship without a council vote.
>>
>
> Read GLEP 39.  Any dev can create a project.  Granted, most Gentoo
> projects don't follow the GLEP to the letter, and as long as nothing
> goes wrong it isn't a big problem. The council can step in if
> necessary, but having some source out on github won't kill anybody.

Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and create
a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any review of the
council. I agree that it can exists in the Github account, or even in
our own infrastructure, but say that Gentoo supports it without a
previous analysis of the council is wrong IMHO.

> Keep in mind though that using github exclusively isn't exactly
> aligned with the social contract - I would encourage having the
> sources on Gentoo servers.  That said, I don't think it matters where
> people do the work vs what is the mirror - just nobody should be
> forced to use github (proprietary) to contribute.
>
> As long as everybody behaves Gentoo devs can work on whatever they
> want to.  None of us are paid to do this.
>
> If a bunch of strangers made the same claim I'd be more concerned.
>
> If anybody feels a Gentoo project is out of line feel free to submit a
> bug to the Council or Trustees as appropriate.  However, please save
> that for things like "they're breaking the law" or "they refuse to
> have elections for a lead" or whatever, and not "I don't like what
> they're working on."  The recourse for the latter is to adjust your
> profile/USE-flags/killfile as appropriate.
>
> Rich
>

-- 
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
 wrote:
> If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some
> disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by
> Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the opposite and
> actually advertise the Gentoo sponsorship with the sentence "This is a
> Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with
> openrc." in their README
>
> I don't think that someone can claim this sponsorship without a council vote.
>

Read GLEP 39.  Any dev can create a project.  Granted, most Gentoo
projects don't follow the GLEP to the letter, and as long as nothing
goes wrong it isn't a big problem. The council can step in if
necessary, but having some source out on github won't kill anybody.

Keep in mind though that using github exclusively isn't exactly
aligned with the social contract - I would encourage having the
sources on Gentoo servers.  That said, I don't think it matters where
people do the work vs what is the mirror - just nobody should be
forced to use github (proprietary) to contribute.

As long as everybody behaves Gentoo devs can work on whatever they
want to.  None of us are paid to do this.

If a bunch of strangers made the same claim I'd be more concerned.

If anybody feels a Gentoo project is out of line feel free to submit a
bug to the Council or Trustees as appropriate.  However, please save
that for things like "they're breaking the law" or "they refuse to
have elections for a lead" or whatever, and not "I don't like what
they're working on."  The recourse for the latter is to adjust your
profile/USE-flags/killfile as appropriate.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
> should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
> least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
> attributed to.
So I made a mistake coming out from a missunderstanding on a commit on a
branch that didn't even get merged since I was expecting approval from
somebody else before that. Cool. The amount of damage caused by this
action is around the same as publishing a patch and not applying it.
> Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
> radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
> know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
Check european copyright laws please, they are quite different from
yours. I at least have had to read and understand the spanish copyright
laws a few times and its not funny. So please don't speak of a "normal"
body of copyright law there is not such thing and some of us have enough
with the "normalizations" USA based lobbies are trying  to impose on ours.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kacper Kowalik  wrote:
> On 18.11.2012 08:57, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
>>> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
>>> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
>>> but I think that is not as important as one may think. The point is
>>> that the desire is there, and thusly there are users who want to make
>>> other systems (namely openrc) work.
>>>
>>> People like openrc. My VMs for instance, boot reasonably quickly.
>>> Booting 5 seconds faster may be super duper, but not at the cost of an
>>> existing reliable solution.
>>
>> So is this the goal?  Great, someone say that then, that's all I'm
>> asking for here.
>>
 That's wonderful, seriously.  But why is this suddenly an official
 Gentoo project?  When did that happen, and why?  Why not just do a
 "normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to
 the distro like all other packages are added.

 My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by
 Gentoo, the distro / foundation.  And that happened in private, without
 any anouncement.  Which is not good on many levels.
>>>
>>> I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon)
>>> projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and
>>> object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get some sort of
>>> Foundation consensus (for anything) nothing would happen. We can't
>>> even get more than 40% of foundation members to vote.
>>
>> I object if this is seen as a "Gentoo blessed" fork of a community
>> project that is worked on by all other major Linux distros.  That is the
>> type of decision that can be made by the Gentoo Council, which is fine,
>> but it sure would be nice if it were publicly stated, instead of having
>> to see it on the Gentoo github site instead.
>
> Hi,
> I've seen this argument being repeated all over this thread and I'd like
> to clarify: http://github.com/gentoo (nor it's bitbucket.org
> counterpart) was never meant to host "Gentoo blessed" forks/projects and
> it *doesn't*.
> Sole purpose of it, was to encourage more contribution from users using
> web goodies like "click a button to fork", since most of the people are
> very comfortable with github's workflow. We (gentoo-science team) have
> seen significant increase of interest since we've started using github.
> Cheers,
> Kacper

Hi,

Well, if yoiu fork a big community project, like udev, in a github
account called gentoo, people *will* think it is a Gentoo project.

If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some
disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by
Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the opposite and
actually advertise the Gentoo sponsorship with the sentence "This is a
Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently being done with
openrc." in their README

I don't think that someone can claim this sponsorship without a council vote.

I disagree with this fork, and tend to agree with what Greg and Diego
said before in this thread.

BR,

Rafael

> P.s. Just to emphasise it even more: There's a pornview fork there too.
> I don't recall Gentoo Council acknowledging it as default imageviewer.
> We should definitely put it into agenda. 

You really want to compare pornview, that was dead and someone kindly
resurrected, with udev, that is actively maintained and the quality of
the fork is questionable? :(

>> And if that is the decision of the council, I would expect the ability
>> to have some type of discussion about it, wouldn't you?
>>
>> Also, the whole issue with the copyrights is very serious, for the
>> reasons I've stated before.  Don't mess with copyrights, developers, and
>> companies, take them very serious, as they are the basis for our
>> licenses.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Kacper Kowalik

On 18.11.2012 08:57, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
>> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
>> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
>> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
>> but I think that is not as important as one may think. The point is
>> that the desire is there, and thusly there are users who want to make
>> other systems (namely openrc) work.
>>
>> People like openrc. My VMs for instance, boot reasonably quickly.
>> Booting 5 seconds faster may be super duper, but not at the cost of an
>> existing reliable solution.
> 
> So is this the goal?  Great, someone say that then, that's all I'm
> asking for here.
> 
>>> That's wonderful, seriously.  But why is this suddenly an official
>>> Gentoo project?  When did that happen, and why?  Why not just do a
>>> "normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to
>>> the distro like all other packages are added.
>>>
>>> My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by
>>> Gentoo, the distro / foundation.  And that happened in private, without
>>> any anouncement.  Which is not good on many levels.
>>
>> I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon)
>> projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and
>> object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get some sort of
>> Foundation consensus (for anything) nothing would happen. We can't
>> even get more than 40% of foundation members to vote.
> 
> I object if this is seen as a "Gentoo blessed" fork of a community
> project that is worked on by all other major Linux distros.  That is the
> type of decision that can be made by the Gentoo Council, which is fine,
> but it sure would be nice if it were publicly stated, instead of having
> to see it on the Gentoo github site instead.

Hi,
I've seen this argument being repeated all over this thread and I'd like
to clarify: http://github.com/gentoo (nor it's bitbucket.org
counterpart) was never meant to host "Gentoo blessed" forks/projects and
it *doesn't*.
Sole purpose of it, was to encourage more contribution from users using
web goodies like "click a button to fork", since most of the people are
very comfortable with github's workflow. We (gentoo-science team) have
seen significant increase of interest since we've started using github.
Cheers,
Kacper

P.s. Just to emphasise it even more: There's a pornview fork there too.
I don't recall Gentoo Council acknowledging it as default imageviewer.
We should definitely put it into agenda. 

> And if that is the decision of the council, I would expect the ability
> to have some type of discussion about it, wouldn't you?
> 
> Also, the whole issue with the copyrights is very serious, for the
> reasons I've stated before.  Don't mess with copyrights, developers, and
> companies, take them very serious, as they are the basis for our
> licenses.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

Wow, that's some kind of thread you started...  :)  I'll respond in
general to a bunch of stuff on this list by topic.

COUNCIL MEETING

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Greg KH  wrote:
>
> So, that's a nice summary, but, what is the end result here?
>

Speaking as somebody who was there, but not for the council, the
summary was the end result OF THE COUNCIL MEETING.

The council was asked to set a deadline for everybody with a separate
/usr to adopt one of the proposed mitigation solutions, like using a
script, initramfs, or whatever.  That is ALL that it was asked to
decide on, and that was all it did decide on.  The whole business
about some devs wanting to fork udev came out about a day in advance,
and speaking personally it only had a little influence on my vote.

The reason I agree with chainsaw's proposal to defer the decision one
month was that there seemed to be enough blockers on this that nothing
was going to happen for almost another month anyway (best-case), and
getting people to move to initramfs or mdev or
[nu/eu]dev[-ng]/whatever wasn't actually going to be holding anything
up for a while.  I'd also have been willing to approve a plan to set a
target for something like 90 days after all the necessary tools (like
genkernel) were stable and news was sent out.  Based on my questions
for williamh I did not get the sense that delaying a month was
actually hindering the udev project (the established udev).  They were
encouraged to continue working on their blockers, preparing news
items, and so on - everything but having a deadline/go-ahead to break
systems that didn't follow the news.

So, a bunch of ideas were floating around in the meeting, and I
embraced the wait a month option since that seemed to have the most
support of any of the options out there.  If williamh had identified
some actual impact of delay on the udev team I'd have probably pushed
for setting the deadline now, but just putting it far enough out there
(90 days from genkernel/etc being ready) that all the various teams
would have a shot at it.  If the udev team gets their news items all
worked out and perhaps even sent out (sans deadline) and all the
blockers cleared before the next meeting I'd be supportive of setting
the deadline around 60 days, but that would be just moral support
since I'm not on the council.

OFFICIAL UDEV PROJECT

I have nothing to do with the new udev project, but I did pass the
staff quiz with much help from calchan.  :)

Read the GLEPs - any Gentoo developer can start a project at any time.
 That's how things work around here.  If I wanted to start a linux
kernel fork as an official Gentoo project I could do so tomorrow.

That doesn't mean that the new udev will become the default udev, any
more than Gentoo hardened will ever become the default experience for
new Gentoo users.  Gentoo is about choice, and if we have devs
interested in maintaining something new then we'll offer that choice
to our users for as long as somebody takes care of it.

If anybody wants to change the defaults/etc, I'd expect that to get a
lot of discussion, and almost certainly a council vote.

COPYRIGHT

I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing
on any of the really contentious points here.

I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the
world that (emphasis mine):
You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or ANY PORTION OF
IT, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute
such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,
provided that you also meet all of these conditions...

None of those conditions included keeping the copyright line intact.

Anybody can therefore alter the copyright line as they wish, as they
have been given explicit permission to do so.  They need only comply
with the other terms in the LGPL to do so (the most important being
licensing it under the LGPL and making the source available.

In fact, (L)GPL v3 has an optional attribution clause, and the fact
that they made this explicit is because some projects might not want
to give out this authorization.

So, if you want an official ruling from the trustees we would need to
meet/vote on it and perhaps discuss with counsel, but my thinking is
that anybody distributing work under the (L)GPL has waived their right
to be named on the copyright line of any copies distributed by others,
and as far as I can tell I have found nothing to the contrary from any
authoritative source.  The only way I think you could argue that
removing copyright notices for a (L)GPL work is illegal is if you
argue that an author doesn't have the legal power to license that
right to another.  However, I'd still think that promissory estoppel
would probably interfere with any kind of recourse - you can't give
somebody permission to do something, and then sue them for actually
doing it.  So, legal or not anybody with standing to sue over this has
likely given up their rights to do so.

Again, th

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Wulf C. Krueger

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 18.11.2012 06:00, Richard Yao wrote:
> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not
> been well defined.
[...]
> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people
> continually trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning.

Can you spot the problem?

Regards, Wulf

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlCozb4ACgkQnuVXRcSi+5pGWQCgnXEc3jZWbz36kXhUMnalonoC
hLIAnRoJO5ihyTDS4BroP0SlEmhhEGvt
=OSbk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Anthony G. Basile


On 11/18/2012 04:48 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:

El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 11:13 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:

On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:

Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
is no need for this one.

You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?

Exactly what I had in mind. So far I see bunch of regressions (back to
bundling code :() in the "eudev" repository and more it deviates from
the orig. upstream the less attractive it's looking...

What should be done, at most, is to cherry-pick and revert the things
that killed the sep. /usr support, put it behind an USE flag to the
current udev's ebuild, perhaps IUSE="+vanilla", and be done with it.

- Samuli



+1

@eudev maintainers, Wouldn't that be possible?


What began as me experimenting and moving code around to see what was 
the best approach to begin addressing several issues has suddenly turned 
into a war.  Pacho, I am not sure whether it is possible or the best way 
to proceed.  I say that with neutrality because I haven't figured out 
everything that's there.


The two edged sword here is that, while I want to do the thinking out 
loud where people can see what I'm considering in code changes and 
participate, I opened the flood gate for a lot of anger.  I woke up to 
see the name of the repo changed and a legal threats being thrown around.


I know that by my very sending of this email, I will have a lot of CC's 
coming back at me with criticisms about things I didn't know I had even 
taken a stand on.


There is one pressing issue though.  It is my understanding that the 
council would like to see where this gets in one months time and stayed 
off a vote on udev.  There are strong feelings for openrc and a 
systemd-less udev.  These will not go away irrespective of this project.


--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID  : D0455535

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Pacho Ramos

El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 11:13 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
> >> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
> >> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
> >> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
> >> is no need for this one.
> >
> > You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?
> 
> Exactly what I had in mind. So far I see bunch of regressions (back to 
> bundling code :() in the "eudev" repository and more it deviates from 
> the orig. upstream the less attractive it's looking...
> 
> What should be done, at most, is to cherry-pick and revert the things 
> that killed the sep. /usr support, put it behind an USE flag to the 
> current udev's ebuild, perhaps IUSE="+vanilla", and be done with it.
> 
> - Samuli
> 
> 

+1

@eudev maintainers, Wouldn't that be possible?


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Greg KH  wrote:
> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
>
> As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on "hate" only lasts
> so long.  I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
> place over 9 years ago[1].
>
> [1] Long story, best told over beers, take me up on it the next time you
> see me, I'll buy.

Not everybody can have a chance to have a beer with you. Would you
mind spending maybe an hour to write it down and share it with
everybody?
-- 
Duy

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-18 Thread Samuli Suominen


On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:

Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
is no need for this one.


You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?


Exactly what I had in mind. So far I see bunch of regressions (back to 
bundling code :() in the "eudev" repository and more it deviates from 
the orig. upstream the less attractive it's looking...


What should be done, at most, is to cherry-pick and revert the things 
that killed the sep. /usr support, put it behind an USE flag to the 
current udev's ebuild, perhaps IUSE="+vanilla", and be done with it.


- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
> 1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
> maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
> users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
> but I think that is not as important as one may think. The point is
> that the desire is there, and thusly there are users who want to make
> other systems (namely openrc) work.
> 
> People like openrc. My VMs for instance, boot reasonably quickly.
> Booting 5 seconds faster may be super duper, but not at the cost of an
> existing reliable solution.

So is this the goal?  Great, someone say that then, that's all I'm
asking for here.

> > That's wonderful, seriously.  But why is this suddenly an official
> > Gentoo project?  When did that happen, and why?  Why not just do a
> > "normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to
> > the distro like all other packages are added.
> >
> > My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by
> > Gentoo, the distro / foundation.  And that happened in private, without
> > any anouncement.  Which is not good on many levels.
> 
> I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon)
> projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and
> object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get some sort of
> Foundation consensus (for anything) nothing would happen. We can't
> even get more than 40% of foundation members to vote.

I object if this is seen as a "Gentoo blessed" fork of a community
project that is worked on by all other major Linux distros.  That is the
type of decision that can be made by the Gentoo Council, which is fine,
but it sure would be nice if it were publicly stated, instead of having
to see it on the Gentoo github site instead.

And if that is the decision of the council, I would expect the ability
to have some type of discussion about it, wouldn't you?

Also, the whole issue with the copyrights is very serious, for the
reasons I've stated before.  Don't mess with copyrights, developers, and
companies, take them very serious, as they are the basis for our
licenses.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Alec Warner

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Greg KH  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
>>
>> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
>> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
>> > accomplished by:
>> >   - getting patches approved upstream
>> > or:
>> >   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
>> > applying them to each release
>>
>>   That approach would be viable if upstream were co-operative or gave a
> damn about anybody else.  They've broken people's sytems with the "new
>> and improved" udev, and claimed that people's systems were already
>> broken.  Kay Sievers got Linus angry enough to go on a rant.  See
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/484
>
> Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers.  It's now
> resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads firmware
> directly, and on older kernels, udev has fixed the issue.)  So that's no
> longer an issue for anyone.
>
>>   In short, the systemd-udev people are hard to work with in general,
>> and have a dislike for Gentoo.  Good luck with getting patches accepted
>> by them.
>
> The fact that Gentoo is alone in wanting to build udev, without systemd
> dependencies being on the system, is something that if I were the
> systemd maintainer, I would reject.  It's also a pretty simple set of
> patches that Gentoo can keep around if it's really a serious issue for
> people.
>
>> > Oh, and if _anyone_ thinks that changing udev is going to "solve" the
>> > "no separate /usr without an initrd" issue, I have a bridge I want to
>> > sell them.
>>
>>   If udev-systemd merely broke a filesystem layout that functioned very
>> well in linux for 2 decades, you would not be seeing this rebellion.
>
> Note, a separate /usr has been broken for a while now, udev is just
> pointing the issue out.  And again, if you want a separate /usr, just
> use an initrd, the solution is simple.
>
>> udev-systemd is also breaking media drivers.  The entire thread
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/194 gives an idea of just how badly Kay
>> has screwed up udev. You participated in that thread.
>
> Again, this is now resolved, no need to keep beating it :)
>
>> How many people have read Siever's post?
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html
>> > We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never
>> > told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands.
>> >
>> > We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation
>> > always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd.
>> >
>> > I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the
>> > announcement, it just wasn't written there.
>>
>>   You (the former udev maintainer) are saying that a standalone udev
>> *WITHOUT SYSTEMD* will always be possible.  The current maintainer is
>> saying that isn't necessarily true.  Who do you expect me to believe?
>
> They are saying it as well.  It's Gentoo that is unique in wanting to
> build it without the rest of the systemd package as well.  Two different
> things here.
>
>>   You also wrote...
>>
>> > And is something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of
>> > a working udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes,
>> > it is a regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of
>> > more processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
>>
>>   Some people are finding firmware drivers not loading, and the cards
>> not functioning.  Don't you consider that a regression?
>
> Again, been a bug for 6 months, hit by very few people, now resolved,
> not an issue.
>
>> Seiver's response is basically the same as for people with separate
>> /usr; telling them that they have to re-write their drivers to
>> accomadate the "new and improved" udev.  And people whose drivers
>> don't fail entirely now get a 60-second delay while udev times out
>> before loading the firmware in another manner.  Those people have seen
>> their bootup times increased by a full minute.  Do you not consider
>> that a regression?
>
> Again, now resolved, not an issue.
>
>> > You need to have a real solid goal in place in order to be able to keep
>> > this up in the long-run.  Otherwise you are going to burn yourself out,
>> > and end up alienating a lot of people along the way.
>>
>>   Howsabout a standalone udev, with no dependancies on systemd, and it
>> won't break people's systems?
>
> If that is the goal, great, it would be wonderful if someone would say
> that.  But from looking at the commits so far in the repo, it really
> doesn't look like that is the goal.  Or if it is, it's getting there in
> a very odd way.

The project is like a day old, chillax.

>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
> 
> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> > accomplished by:
> >   - getting patches approved upstream
> > or:
> >   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
> > applying them to each release
> 
>   That approach would be viable if upstream were co-operative or gave a
> damn about anybody else.  They've broken people's sytems with the "new
> and improved" udev, and claimed that people's systems were already
> broken.  Kay Sievers got Linus angry enough to go on a rant.  See
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/484

Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers.  It's now
resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads firmware
directly, and on older kernels, udev has fixed the issue.)  So that's no
longer an issue for anyone.

>   In short, the systemd-udev people are hard to work with in general,
> and have a dislike for Gentoo.  Good luck with getting patches accepted
> by them.

The fact that Gentoo is alone in wanting to build udev, without systemd
dependencies being on the system, is something that if I were the
systemd maintainer, I would reject.  It's also a pretty simple set of
patches that Gentoo can keep around if it's really a serious issue for
people.

> > Oh, and if _anyone_ thinks that changing udev is going to "solve" the
> > "no separate /usr without an initrd" issue, I have a bridge I want to
> > sell them.
> 
>   If udev-systemd merely broke a filesystem layout that functioned very
> well in linux for 2 decades, you would not be seeing this rebellion.

Note, a separate /usr has been broken for a while now, udev is just
pointing the issue out.  And again, if you want a separate /usr, just
use an initrd, the solution is simple.

> udev-systemd is also breaking media drivers.  The entire thread
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/194 gives an idea of just how badly Kay
> has screwed up udev. You participated in that thread.

Again, this is now resolved, no need to keep beating it :)

> How many people have read Siever's post?
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html
> > We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never
> > told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands.
> > 
> > We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation
> > always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd.
> > 
> > I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the
> > announcement, it just wasn't written there.
> 
>   You (the former udev maintainer) are saying that a standalone udev
> *WITHOUT SYSTEMD* will always be possible.  The current maintainer is
> saying that isn't necessarily true.  Who do you expect me to believe?

They are saying it as well.  It's Gentoo that is unique in wanting to
build it without the rest of the systemd package as well.  Two different
things here.

>   You also wrote...
> 
> > And is something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of
> > a working udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes,
> > it is a regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of
> > more processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
> 
>   Some people are finding firmware drivers not loading, and the cards  
> not functioning.  Don't you consider that a regression?

Again, been a bug for 6 months, hit by very few people, now resolved,
not an issue.

> Seiver's response is basically the same as for people with separate
> /usr; telling them that they have to re-write their drivers to
> accomadate the "new and improved" udev.  And people whose drivers
> don't fail entirely now get a 60-second delay while udev times out
> before loading the firmware in another manner.  Those people have seen
> their bootup times increased by a full minute.  Do you not consider
> that a regression?

Again, now resolved, not an issue.

> > You need to have a real solid goal in place in order to be able to keep
> > this up in the long-run.  Otherwise you are going to burn yourself out,
> > and end up alienating a lot of people along the way.
> 
>   Howsabout a standalone udev, with no dependancies on systemd, and it
> won't break people's systems?

If that is the goal, great, it would be wonderful if someone would say
that.  But from looking at the commits so far in the repo, it really
doesn't look like that is the goal.  Or if it is, it's getting there in
a very odd way.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Matt Turner  wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Walter Dnes  wrote:
>>> As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on "hate" only lasts
>>> so long.  I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
>>> place over 9 years ago.
>>
>>   The Xfree86 people generated a lot of hate, just like Sievers and
>> Poettering.  Xorg hasn't burned out yet.
>
> Let's be fair. The Xorg fork was done by a lot of really competent
> professional developers who had been developing XFree86 for a long
> time.

And it was made because it had become almost impossible to work with
the main developer of XFree86; not because of hate, but by very clear
and valid technical reasons The systemd+udev project instead has code
contributed by every major Linux distribution, and many small ones.
Even Ubuntu hasn't talked about forking udev, and they keep sending
patches, even with their staunch commitment to Upstart. This is what a
developer from Arch Linux (which has just made the decision to move to
systemd) has to say about it:

"... systemd is a cross-distro project: every major and many, many
minor distros have had people contributing to systemd. last i heard
even two debian devs have commit access to the repo, among many
others. systemd upstream is very accommodating of different needs and
different use-cases (as long as they are presented on technical
grounds) and have been a pleasure to work with so far. We are getting
the joint experience of a lot of people/projects who have worked on
different init systems for a long time, I think this is one of the
most important "features" one could have."

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530

Seeing some people comparing udev to XFree86 is one of the more
bizarre things coming out from this fork, and that's saying. However,
I agree with Doug that anyone should code whatever they want to code.
Who knows, maybe something interesting would come off from this fork,
and it certainly doesn't affect us happy Gentoo+systemd+udev users.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Matt Turner

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Walter Dnes  wrote:
>> As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on "hate" only lasts
>> so long.  I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
>> place over 9 years ago.
>
>   The Xfree86 people generated a lot of hate, just like Sievers and
> Poettering.  Xorg hasn't burned out yet.

Let's be fair. The Xorg fork was done by a lot of really competent
professional developers who had been developing XFree86 for a long
time.

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 17/11/2012 23:05, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Diego I'm going to have to call you out here. You've so far in this
> thread claimed you were the reason behind the "eudev" project and now
> claim you're behind OpenRC. Sounds like bragging to me.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not behind any of the two and I
don't want to be. So let me qualify.

For "eudev" — I told ryao to "go and fork udev". This is not exactly the
effect I was aiming for, but okay, it's done, I should have spoken more
carefully (kinda like Robin said regarding the copyright earlier).

As for OpenRC — Roy's the guy who made it and there's no way I'm going
to take that from him. But it did come out of Gentoo/FreeBSD (which, by
the way, was not my brainchild, but ka0ttic's afaict — I just had more
time in my hands at that point that I made it viable), as it was
basically a rewrite of baselayout 2 to be independent of the Linux code.
Most people don't even know that, and I'm fine with that.

Sometimes you do shit because you feel like doing it, and sometimes it
brings you results, other times it brings you nothing... it's just shit
you're doing, which is fine but makes you neither bad nor good.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Walter Dnes

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote

> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> accomplished by:
>   - getting patches approved upstream
> or:
>   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
> applying them to each release

  That approach would be viable if upstream were co-operative or gave a
damn about anybody else.  They've broken people's sytems with the "new
and improved" udev, and claimed that people's systems were already
broken.  Kay Sievers got Linus angry enough to go on a rant.  See
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/484

> So now, after you've dismissed the patch that did the equivalent
> fix in udev (Ming Lei's patch basically disabled your idiotic and
> wrong sequence number test for firmware loading), you say it's ok
> to bypass udev entirely, because that is "more robust".
> 
> Kay, you are so full of sh*t that it's not funny. You're refusing
> to acknowledge your bugs, you refuse to fix them even when a patch
> is sent to you, and then you make excuses for the fact that we have
> to work around *your* bugs, and say that we should have done so from
> the very beginning.
> 
> Yes, doing it in the kernel is "more robust". But don't play games,
> and stop the lying. It's more robust because we have maintainers that
> care, and because we know that regressions are not something we can
> play fast and loose with. If something breaks, and we don't know what
> the right fix for that breakage is, we *revert* the thing that broke.
> 
> So yes, we're clearly better off doing it in the kernel.
> 
> Not because firmware loading cannot be done in user space. But simply
> because udev maintenance since Greg gave it up has gone downhill.

  And as for Gentoo expecting co-operation, see Lennart's attitude
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2009-June/023434.html
> If you don't do RT development or doing
> RT development only for embedded cases, or if you are a
> Gentoo-Build-It-All-Myself-Because-It-Is-So-Much-Faster-And-Need-To-Reinvent-The-Wheel-Daily-And-Configurating-Things-Is-Awesome-Guy
> then it doesn't mean anything for you.

  In short, the systemd-udev people are hard to work with in general,
and have a dislike for Gentoo.  Good luck with getting patches accepted
by them.

> Oh, and if _anyone_ thinks that changing udev is going to "solve" the
> "no separate /usr without an initrd" issue, I have a bridge I want to
> sell them.

  If udev-systemd merely broke a filesystem layout that functioned very
well in linux for 2 decades, you would not be seeing this rebellion.
udev-systemd is also breaking media drivers.  The entire thread
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/194 gives an idea of just how badly Kay
has screwed up udev. You participated in that thread.

> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?

  Wrong.  You're assuming that Sievers/Poettering would allow that.
They've made no secret of their disdain of standalone udev.  Everybody
has seen Poettering's post...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
> (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case
> you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we
> can drop that support entirely.)

How many people have read Siever's post?
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html
> We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never
> told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands.
> 
> We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation
> always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd.
> 
> I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the
> announcement, it just wasn't written there.

  You (the former udev maintainer) are saying that a standalone udev
*WITHOUT SYSTEMD* will always be possible.  The current maintainer is
saying that isn't necessarily true.  Who do you expect me to believe?

  You also wrote...

> And is something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of
> a working udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes,
> it is a regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of
> more processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)

  Some people are finding firmware drivers not loading, and the cards  
not functioning.  Don't you consider that a regression?  Seiver's
response is basically the same as for people with separate /usr; telling
them that they have to re-write their drivers to accomadate the "new and
improved" udev.  And people whose drivers don't fail entirely now get a
60-second delay while udev times out before loading the firmware in
another manner.  Those people have seen their bootup times increased by
a ful

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Doug Goldstein

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
 wrote:
> On 17/11/2012 21:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
>> It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, "I will develop X!", and
>> then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
>> how to start.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes, you
>> just roll dice.  That's what keeps life interesting.
>
> Agreed. Heck I've worked for how long on Gentoo/FreeBSD? And did I have
> a plan for most of that? Not really.
>
> But I didn't go around saying that I was "not following the waterfall"
> or "developing AGILE". I was just doing shit that sounded cool and
> looked nice. Did I expect much out of it? Not really.
>
> At the end we did get something, in particular we got OpenRC out of it,
> which has served us very well for quite a while, and we never planned
> for it before that. But it was just luck, and I wouldn't brag about it.

Diego I'm going to have to call you out here. You've so far in this
thread claimed you were the reason behind the "eudev" project and now
claim you're behind OpenRC. Sounds like bragging to me.

>
> That's why I'm not saying "please shut down the project", just "please
> keep ryao away from the keyboard".
>
> --
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
> flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
>



-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Alec Warner

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Greg KH  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
>> >>> not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
>> >>> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
>> >>> there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.
>> >>
>> >> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
>> >> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
>> >> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
>> >> well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine
>> >> that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after
>> >> our first tag.
>> >
>> > I'll ignore the fact that project goals have nothing to do with
>> > waterfall or agile, and ask, what are your short-term goals?
>> >
>> > Why is this an "official" Gentoo project without this being discussed in
>> > an open manner?
>>
>> We are in the process of getting started. If you read my original email,
>> you would know that the announcement was supposed to occur relatively
>> soon. The reason I sent it was because the Gentoo Council meeting
>> required something be sent sooner than we were ready.
>
> The "announce later, act first" seems like a new move for the Gentoo
> Council to be taking.  Is this really an official act that the council
> is approving?
>
> Why wait to announce a project that is being hosted on a Gentoo account,
> with Gentoo Foundation copyrights on them?  I don't understand the
> delay.
>
>> >>> Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
>> >>> problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
>> >>> been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
>> >>> use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
>> >>> By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
>> >>> the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
>> >>> it to you?
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> greg k-h
>> >>
>> >> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
>> >> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
>> >> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
>> >> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
>> >> is no need for this one.
>> >
>> > You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?
>>
>> kmod does not exist on my system and eudev builds without a problem.
>
> Are you using busybox to load your kernel modules?  Are you saying that
> this is something that will be required here?
>
> Or is this change because you want to use busybox to load your modules?
> If so, why not just use mdev instead of udev at all?  That's what mdev
> was created for, busybox-like systems that don't want the "heavy" udev
> on them.
>
>> I am thinking of writing my own busybox-style code to handle module
>> loading in the builtin when the configure script is told not to build
>> with kmod. Does this not avoid the dependency?
>
> So we will now have 3 different Linux kernel loaders floating around?
> What's wrong with using kmod in the first place?  What does it do that
> is so wrong?
>
> And again, back to my original point above, you have reintroduced the
> problem that kmod solved.  How is that good?
>
>> >> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people continually
>> >> trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning.
>> >
>> > Huh?  Really?  It's as if you think we all are just throwing stuff
>> > against the wall and seeing what sticks?  We aren't responding to real
>> > users, customers, research, history, and competitors?  Your dismissal of
>> > the people who create the system you are using seems pretty bold.
>>
>> The result of what the existing people have been doing has been the
>> equivalent of throwing stuff against the wall for many of us.
>
> Really?  What, specifically, is wrong with the existing systemd solution
> that you have a problem with?  Specifics please, otherwise they can't be
> fixed.
>

So I'm pretty sure the concerns were laid out in other threads.

1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
but I think that is not as important as one may think. The point is
that the desire is there, and thusly there are users who want to make
other systems (namely openrc) work.

People like openrc. My VMs for instance, boot reasonably quickly.
Booting 5 seconds faster may be super duper, but not at the cost of an
existing reliable solution.

>> We have decided to try doing

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Doug Goldstein

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Greg KH  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
>> >>> not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
>> >>> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
>> >>> there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.
>> >>
>> >> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
>> >> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
>> >> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
>> >> well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine
>> >> that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after
>> >> our first tag.
>> >
>> > I'll ignore the fact that project goals have nothing to do with
>> > waterfall or agile, and ask, what are your short-term goals?
>> >
>> > Why is this an "official" Gentoo project without this being discussed in
>> > an open manner?
>>
>> We are in the process of getting started. If you read my original email,
>> you would know that the announcement was supposed to occur relatively
>> soon. The reason I sent it was because the Gentoo Council meeting
>> required something be sent sooner than we were ready.
>
> The "announce later, act first" seems like a new move for the Gentoo
> Council to be taking.  Is this really an official act that the council
> is approving?
>
> Why wait to announce a project that is being hosted on a Gentoo account,
> with Gentoo Foundation copyrights on them?  I don't understand the
> delay.
>
>> >>> Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
>> >>> problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
>> >>> been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
>> >>> use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
>> >>> By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
>> >>> the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
>> >>> it to you?
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> greg k-h
>> >>
>> >> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
>> >> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
>> >> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
>> >> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
>> >> is no need for this one.
>> >
>> > You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?
>>
>> kmod does not exist on my system and eudev builds without a problem.
>
> Are you using busybox to load your kernel modules?  Are you saying that
> this is something that will be required here?
>
> Or is this change because you want to use busybox to load your modules?
> If so, why not just use mdev instead of udev at all?  That's what mdev
> was created for, busybox-like systems that don't want the "heavy" udev
> on them.
>
>> I am thinking of writing my own busybox-style code to handle module
>> loading in the builtin when the configure script is told not to build
>> with kmod. Does this not avoid the dependency?
>
> So we will now have 3 different Linux kernel loaders floating around?
> What's wrong with using kmod in the first place?  What does it do that
> is so wrong?
>
> And again, back to my original point above, you have reintroduced the
> problem that kmod solved.  How is that good?
>
>> >> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people continually
>> >> trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning.
>> >
>> > Huh?  Really?  It's as if you think we all are just throwing stuff
>> > against the wall and seeing what sticks?  We aren't responding to real
>> > users, customers, research, history, and competitors?  Your dismissal of
>> > the people who create the system you are using seems pretty bold.
>>
>> The result of what the existing people have been doing has been the
>> equivalent of throwing stuff against the wall for many of us.
>
> Really?  What, specifically, is wrong with the existing systemd solution
> that you have a problem with?  Specifics please, otherwise they can't be
> fixed.
>
>> We have decided to try doing things ourselves to see if we can do
>> better. We think we can.
>
> That's wonderful, seriously.  But why is this suddenly an official
> Gentoo project?  When did that happen, and why?  Why not just do a
> "normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to
> the distro like all other packages are added.
>
> My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by
> Gentoo, the distro / foundation.  And that happened in private, without
> any anouncement.  Which is not good on many levels.
>
>> > Have you studied the problem area for booting, process monitoring,
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> >>> not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
> >>> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
> >>> there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.
> >>
> >> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
> >> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
> >> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
> >> well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine
> >> that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after
> >> our first tag.
> > 
> > I'll ignore the fact that project goals have nothing to do with
> > waterfall or agile, and ask, what are your short-term goals?
> > 
> > Why is this an "official" Gentoo project without this being discussed in
> > an open manner?
> 
> We are in the process of getting started. If you read my original email,
> you would know that the announcement was supposed to occur relatively
> soon. The reason I sent it was because the Gentoo Council meeting
> required something be sent sooner than we were ready.

The "announce later, act first" seems like a new move for the Gentoo
Council to be taking.  Is this really an official act that the council
is approving?

Why wait to announce a project that is being hosted on a Gentoo account,
with Gentoo Foundation copyrights on them?  I don't understand the
delay.

> >>> Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
> >>> problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
> >>> been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
> >>> use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
> >>> By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
> >>> the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
> >>> it to you?
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> greg k-h
> >>
> >> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
> >> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
> >> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
> >> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
> >> is no need for this one.
> > 
> > You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?
> 
> kmod does not exist on my system and eudev builds without a problem.

Are you using busybox to load your kernel modules?  Are you saying that
this is something that will be required here?

Or is this change because you want to use busybox to load your modules?
If so, why not just use mdev instead of udev at all?  That's what mdev
was created for, busybox-like systems that don't want the "heavy" udev
on them.

> I am thinking of writing my own busybox-style code to handle module
> loading in the builtin when the configure script is told not to build
> with kmod. Does this not avoid the dependency?

So we will now have 3 different Linux kernel loaders floating around?
What's wrong with using kmod in the first place?  What does it do that
is so wrong?

And again, back to my original point above, you have reintroduced the
problem that kmod solved.  How is that good?

> >> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people continually
> >> trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning.
> > 
> > Huh?  Really?  It's as if you think we all are just throwing stuff
> > against the wall and seeing what sticks?  We aren't responding to real
> > users, customers, research, history, and competitors?  Your dismissal of
> > the people who create the system you are using seems pretty bold.
> 
> The result of what the existing people have been doing has been the
> equivalent of throwing stuff against the wall for many of us.

Really?  What, specifically, is wrong with the existing systemd solution
that you have a problem with?  Specifics please, otherwise they can't be
fixed.

> We have decided to try doing things ourselves to see if we can do
> better. We think we can.

That's wonderful, seriously.  But why is this suddenly an official
Gentoo project?  When did that happen, and why?  Why not just do a
"normal" project and if it matures and is good enough, then add it to
the distro like all other packages are added.

My main point here is the fact that this is now being seen as an act by
Gentoo, the distro / foundation.  And that happened in private, without
any anouncement.  Which is not good on many levels.

> > Have you studied the problem area for booting, process monitoring,
> > system isolation, device creation and notification, persistant naming,
> > multiple users with multiple displays, and the like, and found that
> > Linux is lacking in this

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 17/11/2012 21:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, "I will develop X!", and
> then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
> how to start.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes, you
> just roll dice.  That's what keeps life interesting.

Agreed. Heck I've worked for how long on Gentoo/FreeBSD? And did I have
a plan for most of that? Not really.

But I didn't go around saying that I was "not following the waterfall"
or "developing AGILE". I was just doing shit that sounded cool and
looked nice. Did I expect much out of it? Not really.

At the end we did get something, in particular we got OpenRC out of it,
which has served us very well for quite a while, and we never planned
for it before that. But it was just luck, and I wouldn't brag about it.

That's why I'm not saying "please shut down the project", just "please
keep ryao away from the keyboard".

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Joshua Kinard

On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're going quite a tad overboard,
> and looks like your concept of development is "I'm not sure of what I'm
> doing, but I'm doing it anyway".

It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, "I will develop X!", and
then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
how to start.  Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes, you
just roll dice.  That's what keeps life interesting.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
ku...@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"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

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/18/2012 12:35 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> So, I'll say this again, why is this project getting the copyright of
> the Gentoo Foundation?  Is it an "official" project of Gentoo in some
> manner?

One developer who asked to join our project as we are in the process of
getting started thought he would be helpful by working on this. He is
behind the commit that you find to be objectionable and I am going to
let him fix it.

As for being an official project, we will make an official announcement
soon. Others wanted to have a repository that people could use on their
systems before we did an announcement to avoid a paper launch. I agreed
with their sentiments, which is why it is unannounced at this time.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
>>> not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
>>> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
>>> there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.
>>
>> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
>> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
>> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
>> well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine
>> that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after
>> our first tag.
> 
> I'll ignore the fact that project goals have nothing to do with
> waterfall or agile, and ask, what are your short-term goals?
> 
> Why is this an "official" Gentoo project without this being discussed in
> an open manner?

We are in the process of getting started. If you read my original email,
you would know that the announcement was supposed to occur relatively
soon. The reason I sent it was because the Gentoo Council meeting
required something be sent sooner than we were ready.

>> A consequence of being open source means that everyone can see what we
>> do, so people are able to send us their opinions on things that have not
>> been officially announced, much like this project.
> 
> Given that the Gentoo Foundation is claiming copyright on this project
> now, not announcing it seems a bit rude to the rest of us who make up
> this foundation, don't you think?
> 
> That's not very open :(

Actually, that is one developer who asked if he could join the project
and thought that he was being helpful. I insisted that those changes go
into a branch because I felt that they could cause problems.

>>> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
>>> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
>>> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
>>> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
>>> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
>>> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
>>> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
>>
>> See the following:
>>
>> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
>
> You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency.  It's not
> inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
> of how things work here.
>
> Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
> complex, at all.  To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
> later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
> methodology that I know of.

 I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were
 introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from
 which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing
 with them.
>>>
>>> Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
>>> problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
>>> been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
>>> use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
>>> By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
>>> the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
>>> it to you?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>
>> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
>> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
>> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
>> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
>> is no need for this one.
> 
> You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?

kmod does not exist on my system and eudev builds without a problem. I
am thinking of writing my own busybox-style code to handle module
loading in the builtin when the configure script is told not to build
with kmod. Does this not avoid the dependency?

>> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people continually
>> trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning.
> 
> Huh?  Really?  It's as if you think we all are just throwing stuff
> against the wall and seeing what sticks?  We aren't responding to real
> users, customers, research, history, and competitors?  Your dismissal of
> the people who create the system you are using seems pretty bold.

The result of what the existing people have been doing has been the
equivalent of throwing stuff against the wall for many of us. We have
decided to try doing things ourselves to see if we can do better. We
think we can.

>> At some point, someone

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:13:37AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is
> announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with
> RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile
> with Kay Sievers and Lennart Poettering, then we are free to do that.
> These projects need not be long term commitments.

systemd is not a "Red Hat" project at all.  It just happens to have some
of the developers of it working for them.  If that is their job to
develop it or not, is unknown to all of us.

Also, in the beginning of systemd, a lot of the code, and research, was
done by someone working for a distro different than Red Hat.

systemd is a freedesktop.org project, that is all, please don't play
this as a distro-vs-distro issue, otherwise it will end up looking like
it is a "Gentoo vs. the world" thing, and I, as a long-term Gentoo
developer, do not want that at all.

So, I'll say this again, why is this project getting the copyright of
the Gentoo Foundation?  Is it an "official" project of Gentoo in some
manner?

And, to all of you who have emailed me privately saying they don't want
to talk about this on-list, that's what gentoo-core is for, I'd be glad
to take it there if you feel gentoo-dev is to "public" for stuff like
this.  Otherwise, this is opensource, we do development in the open, not
in private.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 17/11/2012 21:26, Richard Yao wrote:
> Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
> to the widespread attention. With that said, responses to Gentoo have
> always been mixed, but I have seen far more positive responses than
> negative responses and I am quite happy with the result.

Then keep being happy for the result, but leave it to someone else to
speak. Because Robin is not making us looking like a bunch of idiots,
you are, with your replies.

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> But you've made Gentoo the laughing stock of the Linux world over the
> past couple of days, and now you come up with this? Please get a clue,
> please.

Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
to the widespread attention. With that said, responses to Gentoo have
always been mixed, but I have seen far more positive responses than
negative responses and I am quite happy with the result.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 17/11/2012 21:13, Richard Yao wrote:
> I would appreciate it if people would avoid harassing others that decide
> to develop things different than what they want to use. Read GLEP 0039:

And I would appreciate if you'd avoid making us look like a bunch of
wannabes, by using buzzwords like "waterfall" and "agile" just because
you read about them in a book or something.

Really, I'm not caring a single bit about what you want to do with your
free time, and I'm not telling you to shut your project down (as I
can't). Heck I'm the cause of its existence I'm afraid.

But you've made Gentoo the laughing stock of the Linux world over the
past couple of days, and now you come up with this? Please get a clue,
please.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're going quite a tad overboard,
and looks like your concept of development is "I'm not sure of what I'm
doing, but I'm doing it anyway".

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> > not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
> > makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
> > there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.
> 
> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
> well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine
> that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after
> our first tag.

I'll ignore the fact that project goals have nothing to do with
waterfall or agile, and ask, what are your short-term goals?

Why is this an "official" Gentoo project without this being discussed in
an open manner?

> A consequence of being open source means that everyone can see what we
> do, so people are able to send us their opinions on things that have not
> been officially announced, much like this project.

Given that the Gentoo Foundation is claiming copyright on this project
now, not announcing it seems a bit rude to the rest of us who make up
this foundation, don't you think?

That's not very open :(

> > I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> > binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> > surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
> > something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
> > udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
> > regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
> > processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
> 
>  See the following:
> 
>  https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
> >>>
> >>> You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency.  It's not
> >>> inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
> >>> of how things work here.
> >>>
> >>> Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
> >>> complex, at all.  To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
> >>> later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
> >>> methodology that I know of.
> >>
> >> I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were
> >> introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from
> >> which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing
> >> with them.
> > 
> > Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
> > problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
> > been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
> > use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
> > By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
> > the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
> > it to you?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
> dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
> dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
> can avoid it. None of us want to force dependencies on others and there
> is no need for this one.

You do realize that you didn't really drop the dependency at all, right?

> With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people continually
> trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal planning.

Huh?  Really?  It's as if you think we all are just throwing stuff
against the wall and seeing what sticks?  We aren't responding to real
users, customers, research, history, and competitors?  Your dismissal of
the people who create the system you are using seems pretty bold.

> At some point, someone has to enforce a form of structure where
> further change occurs in a well defined manner and change because we
> can is rejected as being pointless. That is what we want and that is
> what we feel that our users want.

Ok, what is that structure you are wishing were present?  What problems
do you have with systemd on a technical level that are not being
addressed?  What technical problems with udev do you have that caused
this to be forked?  What problems are you wishing to solve, and what
goals do you have by doing all of this?

Have you studied the problem area for booting, process monitoring,
system isolation, device creation and notification, persistant naming,
multiple users with multiple displays, and the like, and found that
Linux is lacking in this area?  If so, I would love to learn more, as I
want Linux, and Gentoo, to succeed.  Without knowing the problems you
are having, there's no way anyone will ever change.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/18/2012 12:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
>> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
>> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
>> well defined. 
> 
> Can I step in and just as you to shut your mouth? It might not be the
> most tactful way to say it, but the more you write, the more Gentoo as a
> whole project is looking like a circus... the "AGILE" bullshit was
> really the last straw for me trying to keep quiet...
> 

I would appreciate it if people would avoid harassing others that decide
to develop things different than what they want to use. Read GLEP 0039:

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html

We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is
announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with
RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile
with Kay Sievers and Lennart Poettering, then we are free to do that.
These projects need not be long term commitments.

There is absolutely no reason for this harassment.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
> > should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
> > least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
> > attributed to.
> > 
> > Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
> > radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
> > know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
> > 
> > Please fix this now.
> 
> klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
> started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
> copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.

Why is this getting a Gentoo Foundation copyright in the first place?
Why is that necessary?

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
> I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
> waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
> but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
> well defined. 

Can I step in and just as you to shut your mouth? It might not be the
most tactful way to say it, but the more you write, the more Gentoo as a
whole project is looking like a circus... the "AGILE" bullshit was
really the last straw for me trying to keep quiet...

-- 
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
 On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really?  What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng?  Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)

 That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email,
 you would see that we had settled on eudev.
>>>
>>> The name change still doesn't make it any less "entertaining" :)
>>>
>>> What does the "e" stand for?
>>
>> That is a common question. Someone associated with Canonical suggested
>> that e stand for embedded. Others consider the "eu" prefix to be the
>> greek root for "true". Honestly, we don't care. It is just a name.
> 
> I wouldn't pick "embedded" as the embedded world is now using systemd as
> it meets their requirements much better than anything else :)

As far as I know, they are using busybox.

> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> accomplished by:
>   - getting patches approved upstream
> or:
>   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
> applying them to each release

 The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its
 derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat.
>>>
>>> Wait, really?  You want to replace systemd?  Then why are you starting
>>> at udev and not systemd?
>>>
>>> What is wrong with systemd that it requires a fork?  All other distros
>>> seem to be participating in the development process of systemd quite
>>> well, what is keeping Gentoo developers from also doing the same?
>>>
>>> What are your goals, specifically, in detail.
>>
>> Is there any way that the answer to your inquiry would result in a
>> productive conversation where you would not attempt to dictate what we do?
> 
> I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
> not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
> makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
> there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.

I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
well defined. Some short term goals have been defined, but I imagine
that you are already familiar with them. I suggest asking again after
our first tag.

A consequence of being open source means that everyone can see what we
do, so people are able to send us their opinions on things that have not
been officially announced, much like this project.

> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)

 See the following:

 https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
>>>
>>> You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency.  It's not
>>> inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
>>> of how things work here.
>>>
>>> Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
>>> complex, at all.  To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
>>> later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
>>> methodology that I know of.
>>
>> I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were
>> introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from
>> which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing
>> with them.
> 
> Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
> problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
> been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
> use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
> By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
> the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
> it to you?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that do not want it
can avoid it. None of us want to force depe

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:26:41PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD.

I recommend deleting the branch and starting over, having that commit
floating around like that could cause trouble.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:28:00AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > > under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
> > > should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
> > > least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
> > > attributed to.
> > > 
> > > Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
> > > radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
> > > know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
> > > 
> > > Please fix this now.
> > klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
> > started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
> > copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.
> To note here, since I was CC'd directly:
> I said changed files should get the modified notice, as Gentoo should have
> copyright on the changes that are explicitly new by Gentoo. I didn't say to 
> add
> it to every file in the repo (but I will admit that I didn't tell him not to
> either).
> 
> I'll state it clearly what should be the case:
> - the s/systemd/eudev/ line, and insertion of "From prior code in systemd and
>   pre-systemd udev" being added now is fine.
> - WHEN substantial changes are made to an existing file, the copyright
>   attribution should be amended to include the Gentoo Foundation. The
>   attribution should NOT be changed before this. Better text given the 
> existing
>   wording would be:
>   Portions Copyright 2012 Gentoo Foundation.
> 
> - Files that have no copyright notice should NOT be touched until such time as
>   a major addition is added to them.
> 
> http://dpaste.com/832634/ is what I approved with klondike (his 2nd paste to 
> me
> in the discussion).

That makes sense, but is not what ended up in that commit.  The commit
needs to be removed.

Also, how can any new work be assigned to the Gentoo Foundation?  Is
there an explicit copyright assignment happening somewhere that I am not
aware of?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
>>> under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
>>> should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
>>> least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
>>> attributed to.
>>>
>>> Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
>>> radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
>>> know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
>>>
>>> Please fix this now.
>> klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
>> started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
>> copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.
> To note here, since I was CC'd directly:
> I said changed files should get the modified notice, as Gentoo should have
> copyright on the changes that are explicitly new by Gentoo. I didn't say to 
> add
> it to every file in the repo (but I will admit that I didn't tell him not to
> either).
> 
> I'll state it clearly what should be the case:
> - the s/systemd/eudev/ line, and insertion of "From prior code in systemd and
>   pre-systemd udev" being added now is fine.
> - WHEN substantial changes are made to an existing file, the copyright
>   attribution should be amended to include the Gentoo Foundation. The
>   attribution should NOT be changed before this. Better text given the 
> existing
>   wording would be:
>   Portions Copyright 2012 Gentoo Foundation.
> 
> - Files that have no copyright notice should NOT be touched until such time as
>   a major addition is added to them.
> 
> http://dpaste.com/832634/ is what I approved with klondike (his 2nd paste to 
> me
> in the discussion).
> 
> Copying out of the pastebin so we have a permanent record.
>> Original:
>> /***
>> This file is part of systemd.
>>
>> Copyright 2011 Lennart Poettering
>>
>> systemd is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>> under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
>> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or
>> (at your option) any later version.
>>
>> systemd is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
>> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
>> Lesser General Public License for more details.
>>
>> You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>> along with systemd; If not, see .
>> ***/
>>
>> Modification:
>>
>> /***
>> This file is part of eudev.
>> From prior code in systemd and pre-systemd udev.
>>
>> Copyright 2011 Lennart Poettering
>> Copyright 2012 Gentoo Foundation
>>
>> eudev is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
>> under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
>> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or
>> (at your option) any later version.
>>
>> eudev is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
>> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
>> Lesser General Public License for more details.
>>
>> You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
>> along with eudev; If not, see .
>> ***/

These changes were made in a branch so that they could be reviewed for
the consequences of such misunderstandings before going into HEAD. I
will let klondike fix the branch. We can review it again after he has
finished.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> >>> really?  What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng?  Be a bit
> >>> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> >>> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)
> >>
> >> That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email,
> >> you would see that we had settled on eudev.
> > 
> > The name change still doesn't make it any less "entertaining" :)
> > 
> > What does the "e" stand for?
> 
> That is a common question. Someone associated with Canonical suggested
> that e stand for embedded. Others consider the "eu" prefix to be the
> greek root for "true". Honestly, we don't care. It is just a name.

I wouldn't pick "embedded" as the embedded world is now using systemd as
it meets their requirements much better than anything else :)

> >>> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
> >>> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> >>> accomplished by:
> >>>   - getting patches approved upstream
> >>> or:
> >>>   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
> >>> applying them to each release
> >>
> >> The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its
> >> derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat.
> > 
> > Wait, really?  You want to replace systemd?  Then why are you starting
> > at udev and not systemd?
> > 
> > What is wrong with systemd that it requires a fork?  All other distros
> > seem to be participating in the development process of systemd quite
> > well, what is keeping Gentoo developers from also doing the same?
> > 
> > What are your goals, specifically, in detail.
> 
> Is there any way that the answer to your inquiry would result in a
> productive conversation where you would not attempt to dictate what we do?

The only thing I'm "telling" anyone to do is to fix the copyright mess
they created, as it is a legal liability for the Gentoo Foundation,
which I care about.  That HAS to be resolved.

I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
not have asked about them.  Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
makes sense, perhaps, to me, not.  But without knowing such goals,
there's no way that anyone can get an idea about this.

> >>> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> >>> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> >>> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
> >>> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
> >>> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
> >>> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
> >>> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
> >>
> >> See the following:
> >>
> >> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
> > 
> > You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency.  It's not
> > inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
> > of how things work here.
> > 
> > Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
> > complex, at all.  To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
> > later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
> > methodology that I know of.
> 
> I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were
> introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from
> which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing
> with them.

Wait, what?  The kmod introduction was deliberate and solves a real
problem.  kmod itself was created _because_ of these issues that had
been seen and found.  It was written for the systemd/udev projects to
use, and had been worked on for a long time by a number of developers.
By removing it, you have now negated that solution and we are back to
the old problems we had before.  That doesn't seem very wise to me, does
it to you?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
>>> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
>>> under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
>>> should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
>>> least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
>>> attributed to.
>>>
>>> Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
>>> radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
>>> know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
>>>
>>> Please fix this now.
>>
>> klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
>> started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
>> copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Look at the comment I made on that commit for details, but here it is
> again:
> 
> You can not claim copyright on a file you did not do one of the two
> things:
>   - create yourself
>   - modify in a "major" manner
> 
> Adding a comment at the top saying it is part of the eudev project and
> covered under the LGPL2+ does not meet either of these requirements at
> all.
> 
> By merely importing a file into a new project, you can not claim
> copyright on it.  That's the law.  The fact that this was reviewed by
> someone makes me seriously wonder about the copyright policies of the
> Gentoo Foundation.
> 
> Also, you can not assign copyright to a third party, unless you have a
> copyright assignment form.  Do the developers doing this work have such
> a form assigned?  And in what country and state is that form valid for?
> Different countries, and states, have different laws here, and
> one-form-fits-all is not true anywhere.
> 
> So blindly adding a Gentoo Foundation copyright to _any_ file in this
> repo, that has not met one of the two above rules, is illegal, and
> grounds for opening the Gentoo Foundation up to big trouble.
> 
>> Would you mind joining us in IRC to discuss your concerns?
> 
> I don't do IRC anymore, sorry.  Email is the best way to reach me.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

2012-11-17 Thread Robin H. Johnson

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
> > should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
> > least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
> > attributed to.
> > 
> > Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
> > radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
> > know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
> > 
> > Please fix this now.
> klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
> started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
> copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.
To note here, since I was CC'd directly:
I said changed files should get the modified notice, as Gentoo should have
copyright on the changes that are explicitly new by Gentoo. I didn't say to add
it to every file in the repo (but I will admit that I didn't tell him not to
either).

I'll state it clearly what should be the case:
- the s/systemd/eudev/ line, and insertion of "From prior code in systemd and
  pre-systemd udev" being added now is fine.
- WHEN substantial changes are made to an existing file, the copyright
  attribution should be amended to include the Gentoo Foundation. The
  attribution should NOT be changed before this. Better text given the existing
  wording would be:
  Portions Copyright 2012 Gentoo Foundation.

- Files that have no copyright notice should NOT be touched until such time as
  a major addition is added to them.

http://dpaste.com/832634/ is what I approved with klondike (his 2nd paste to me
in the discussion).

Copying out of the pastebin so we have a permanent record.
> Original:
> /***
> This file is part of systemd.
> 
> Copyright 2011 Lennart Poettering
> 
> systemd is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
> 
> systemd is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> Lesser General Public License for more details.
> 
> You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
> along with systemd; If not, see .
> ***/
> 
> Modification:
> 
> /***
> This file is part of eudev.
> From prior code in systemd and pre-systemd udev.
> 
> Copyright 2011 Lennart Poettering
> Copyright 2012 Gentoo Foundation
> 
> eudev is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
> 
> eudev is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> Lesser General Public License for more details.
> 
> You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
> along with eudev; If not, see .
> ***/




-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
>>> really?  What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng?  Be a bit
>>> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
>>> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)
>>
>> That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email,
>> you would see that we had settled on eudev.
> 
> The name change still doesn't make it any less "entertaining" :)
> 
> What does the "e" stand for?

That is a common question. Someone associated with Canonical suggested
that e stand for embedded. Others consider the "eu" prefix to be the
greek root for "true". Honestly, we don't care. It is just a name.

>>> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
>>> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
>>> accomplished by:
>>>   - getting patches approved upstream
>>> or:
>>>   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
>>> applying them to each release
>>
>> The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its
>> derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat.
> 
> Wait, really?  You want to replace systemd?  Then why are you starting
> at udev and not systemd?
> 
> What is wrong with systemd that it requires a fork?  All other distros
> seem to be participating in the development process of systemd quite
> well, what is keeping Gentoo developers from also doing the same?
> 
> What are your goals, specifically, in detail.

Is there any way that the answer to your inquiry would result in a
productive conversation where you would not attempt to dictate what we do?

>>> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
>>> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
>>> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
>>> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
>>> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
>>> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
>>> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
>>
>> See the following:
>>
>> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
> 
> You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency.  It's not
> inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
> of how things work here.
> 
> Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
> complex, at all.  To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
> later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
> methodology that I know of.

I can say the same about the manner in which these changes were
introduced. Ripping them out to get the codebase back into a state from
which we are comfortable moving forward is the only sane way of dealing
with them.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> > that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> > under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
> > should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
> > least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
> > attributed to.
> > 
> > Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
> > radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
> > know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
> > 
> > Please fix this now.
> 
> klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
> started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
> copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.

Seriously?

Look at the comment I made on that commit for details, but here it is
again:

You can not claim copyright on a file you did not do one of the two
things:
  - create yourself
  - modify in a "major" manner

Adding a comment at the top saying it is part of the eudev project and
covered under the LGPL2+ does not meet either of these requirements at
all.

By merely importing a file into a new project, you can not claim
copyright on it.  That's the law.  The fact that this was reviewed by
someone makes me seriously wonder about the copyright policies of the
Gentoo Foundation.

Also, you can not assign copyright to a third party, unless you have a
copyright assignment form.  Do the developers doing this work have such
a form assigned?  And in what country and state is that form valid for?
Different countries, and states, have different laws here, and
one-form-fits-all is not true anywhere.

So blindly adding a Gentoo Foundation copyright to _any_ file in this
repo, that has not met one of the two above rules, is illegal, and
grounds for opening the Gentoo Foundation up to big trouble.

> Would you mind joining us in IRC to discuss your concerns?

I don't do IRC anymore, sorry.  Email is the best way to reach me.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> > really?  What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng?  Be a bit
> > more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> > "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)
> 
> That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email,
> you would see that we had settled on eudev.

The name change still doesn't make it any less "entertaining" :)

What does the "e" stand for?

> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> > accomplished by:
> >   - getting patches approved upstream
> > or:
> >   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
> > applying them to each release
> 
> The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its
> derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat.

Wait, really?  You want to replace systemd?  Then why are you starting
at udev and not systemd?

What is wrong with systemd that it requires a fork?  All other distros
seem to be participating in the development process of systemd quite
well, what is keeping Gentoo developers from also doing the same?

What are your goals, specifically, in detail.

> > I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> > binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> > surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
> > something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
> > udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
> > regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
> > processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)
> 
> See the following:
> 
> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3

You moved from an explicit to an implicit dependency.  It's not
inspiring any sense of confidence from me that there is an understanding
of how things work here.

Seriously, the codebase you are working with isn't that large, or
complex, at all.  To go rip stuff out, only to want to add it back in
later, wastes time, causes bugs, and goes against _any_ software
methodology that I know of.

confused,

greg k-h

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the "Copyright" branch
> that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
> under all countries that follow the "normal" body of Copyright Law.  It
> should be removed right now before someone gets into trouble, not the
> least of which would be the orginization that the copyright is now being
> attributed to.
> 
> Come on people, this is basic copyright law, it's not something
> radically new.  It's something that _all_ software developers should
> know, either from school, or any company they have ever worked at.
> 
> Please fix this now.

klondike discussed the copyright branch changes with robbat2 before they
started and there was no problem at the time. We have retained all
copyright notices and looking at the branch, I find nothing objectionable.

Would you mind joining us in IRC to discuss your concerns?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)

On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
> really?  What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng?  Be a bit
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)

That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email,
you would see that we had settled on eudev.

> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork?  What are you
> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
> accomplished by:
>   - getting patches approved upstream
> or:
>   - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and
> applying them to each release

The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its
derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat.

> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right?  And is
> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working
> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a
> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more
> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.)

See the following:

https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] udev-ng? (Was: Summary Council meeting Tuesday 13 November 2012)