[gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Samuli Suominen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 95 bytes --]

If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild



[-- Attachment #2: 2014-02-21-udev-upgrade.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 748 bytes --]

Title: Upgrading udev to version >=209
Author: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2014-02-21
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: <sys-fs/udev-209

First of all, kernel option CONFIG_FHANDLE=y should be enabled since version
209 for libudev, but mostly this news item is to inform you about the network
interface naming configuration change:

/lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules was renamed to
80-net-setup-link.rules and the actual configuration is at
/lib/systemd/network/99-default.link which you can override in
/etc/systemd/network/

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade#udev_208_to_209
[2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Steev Klimaszewski]

On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 07:32 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
> 
> 

SHOULD or NEEDS TO BE ?  Honestly, this didn't read like much of a news
announcement at all, and reads more like something I'd write when I want
to tell myself something.

The first paragraph of it should probably be rewritten.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 502 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-02-24, o godz. 07:32:01
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild

Could you wait for 210, please? Upstream promised they're going to
release it soon and it has a number of important fixes. We don't want
to maintain a huge patch set to systemd-209, so we'd rather wait
for 210, and it's better for users when udev & systemd are on par.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Duncan]

Samuli Suominen posted on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:32:01 +0200 as excerpted:

> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
> 
> 
> Title: Upgrading udev to version >=209
> Author: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2014-02-21
> Revision: 1
> News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Installed: <sys-fs/udev-209
> 
> First of all, kernel option CONFIG_FHANDLE=y should be enabled since
> version 209 for libudev, but mostly this news item is to inform you
> about the network interface naming configuration change:

Rewording Steev's comment, this wording comes across as rather more 
informal than most news items.  I rather like the approach myself but it 
does rather stick out.

A more formal approach might be:

Two points:

1) CONFIG_FHANDLE=y is required in your kernel config for >=udev-209.

2) ...

> /lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules was renamed to
> 80-net-setup-link.rules and the actual configuration is at
> /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link which you can override in
> /etc/systemd/network/

That's a run-on sentence.  Again, not acceptable in formal writing.  
Continuing from the above, here's a suggested point 2:

2) The former /lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules file is renamed to 
80-net-setup-link.rules in the same location.  If you were overriding 
udev's predictable naming feature using an identically named file in
/etc/udev/rules.d, either rename it accordingly or see the wiki link[1] 
below for other options.


Meanwhile, on the wiki I'd suggest stressing the kernel commandline 
option (mentioned further up the wiki page but not in the 208-to-209 
section), since presumably it's not going to be constantly changing to 
suit systemd-udev's upstream whims, as the script name disabling method 
seems to be doing.

Optionally (and IMO preferred), make that the suggested solution in the 
news item with the following suggested text replacing the above:

2) /lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is being renamed.  If you 
were overriding it with an identically named file in /etc/udev/rules.d/, 
you'll need to change your override as well.  We suggest using the 
net.ifnames=0 kernel commandline option method as that should remain 
stable through many udev releases.  For other options and more detail, 
see the wiki link[1] below. 

> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade#udev_208_to_209
> [2] http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
> PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Thomas D.]

Hi,

not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't have
"/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).

The current news item draft raises question like "When the 'actual
configuration' is in /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what will
happen to people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"

Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path for
systemd *and* non-systemd users...

Thanks.


-Thomas

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't have
> "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>
> The current news item draft raises question like "When the 'actual
> configuration' is in /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what will
> happen to people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>
> Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path for
> systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>

You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't want
unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 24/02/14 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't
>> have "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>> 
>> The current news item draft raises question like "When the
>> 'actual configuration' is in
>> /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what will happen to
>> people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>> 
>> Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path
>> for systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>> 
> 
> You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't
> want unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.
> 

..it'd be worth adding this little tidbit to the news item, probably...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlMLdqYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDgIAD/W9UzdSD+Iafe3p+/g61tQESl
PzCBbOK+uV1yIob3fzEBAI2zX/4sGKEjvKUhjZvLo+h/djzkhL+tD4hODYvjWOH9
=UN8P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 24/02/14 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't
>>> have "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>>>
>>> The current news item draft raises question like "When the
>>> 'actual configuration' is in
>>> /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what will happen to
>>> people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>>>
>>> Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path
>>> for systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>>>
>>
>> You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't
>> want unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.
>>
>
> ..it'd be worth adding this little tidbit to the news item, probably...
>

Yeah. I poked around on the wiki a bit to try and find any reference
to INSTALL_MASK and systemd, but didn't find anything.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2120 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:16:36 -0500 Alex Xu wrote:

>On 24/02/14 12:48 PM, Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) wrote:
>> This is another good reason why udev should have _never_ been
>> integrated into systemd!
>> 
>> In case someone still wants to retain his original systemd
>> INSTALL_MASK, just use udev ebuilds from poly-c overlay. These
>> ebuilds
>> 
>> - still install udevd into /sbin where a daemon belongs to.
>> - disable the crappy new network naming scheme by default
>> - install the new naming scheme config files into /lib/udev/network/
>> (version >=209)
>> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd
>> crap.
>> 
>> I have no plans to stop fixing the annoyances the gentoo udev
>> ebuilds have since udev was integrated into systemd in the ebuilds
>> from my overlay.
>> 
>> <div>-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------</div><div>Von: Mike
>> Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> </div><div>Datum:24.02.2014  16:55
>> (GMT+01:00) </div><div>An: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
>> </div><div>Betreff: Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for
>> >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade </div><div> </div>On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at
>> >7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't
>>> have "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>>>
>>> The current news item draft raises question like "When the 'actual
>>> configuration' is in /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what
>>> will happen to people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>>>
>>> Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path
>>> for systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>>>
>> 
>> You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't want
>> unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.
>> 
>
>While you're whinging about integration, you're sending bad HTML email.
>

Yeah, didn't know my mobile phone's mail client is sending that ugly
mails. Gotta look for a better one...

-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 523 bytes --]

One question - if i have net.ifnames=0 in kernel cmdline and no
80-net-name-slot.rules in /etc/udev/rules.d - will everything be fine
with this upgrade(of course, after checking of CONFIG_FHANDLE)?

If yes, i think it should be mentioned, something like 'if you disabled
persinent network interface names via kernel command line - nothing will
change for you'.

-- 
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 555 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "D" == Duncan  <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> writes:

D> 2) The former /lib/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules file is renamed to 
D> 80-net-setup-link.rules in the same location.  If you were overriding 
D> udev's predictable naming feature using an identically named file in
D> /etc/udev/rules.d, either rename it accordingly or see the wiki link[1] 
D> below for other options.

+1 on that.  The proposed rewrite does a much better job of explaining
why anyone should care about the change.

-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2203 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:31:20 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote:

>
>> - disable the crappy new network naming scheme by default
>> - install the new naming scheme config files into /lib/udev/network/
>> (version >=209)
>
>stupid, since upstream assured me, systemd-udevd won't be the only
>package reading the file from it's intended location

Funny that the person who turned official Gentoo udev ebuilds into the
stupid pile of crap they are today tells that these changes are
stupid... 
But well... I wouldn't have expected anything else...

>> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd
>> crap.
>
>childish. me don't like pink ponies. pink too much. pony okay.

Riiight... as udev has anything else to do with systemd other than
being uselessly integrated into systemd whereas it can still work on
its own with no whatsoever relation to systemd. But yes, totally
childish...

>>
>> I have no plans to stop fixing the annoyances the gentoo udev ebuilds
>> have since udev was integrated into systemd in the ebuilds from my
>> overlay.
>
>as you wish, /me passes the `find . -exec sed -i -e 's:systemd::g' {}
>+` beer can opener :)
>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Mike Gilbert
>> Datum:24.02.2014 16:55 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: Gentoo Dev
>> Betreff: Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209
>> upgrade
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't
>> > have "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>> >
>> > The current news item draft raises question like "When the 'actual
>> > configuration' is in /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what
>> > will happen to people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>> >
>> > Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path
>> > for systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>> >
>>
>> You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't want
>> unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.
>>
>
>



-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Joshua Kinard]

On 02/24/2014 12:17 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 24/02/14 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't
>>>> have "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>>>>
>>>> The current news item draft raises question like "When the
>>>> 'actual configuration' is in
>>>> /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what will happen to
>>>> people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>>>>
>>>> Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path
>>>> for systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>>>>
>>>
>>> You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't
>>> want unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.
>>>
>>
>> ..it'd be worth adding this little tidbit to the news item, probably...
>>
> 
> Yeah. I poked around on the wiki a bit to try and find any reference
> to INSTALL_MASK and systemd, but didn't find anything.

Minor note, also not using systemd (or udev, for that matter), but out of
curiosity, I checked my x86_64 system and I don't have a /lib/systemd
directory.  Looks like everything is in /usr/lib/systemd instead.  So, this
might be a good item to document somewhere (possibly the wiki), so people
aren't confused and add the wrong directories to INSTALL_MASK (or other
relevant variables)

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@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

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 12:17 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 24/02/14 10:55 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Thomas D. <whissi@whissi.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> not everyone is using systemd. On my systems for example, I don't
>>>>> have "/lib/systemd/" (INSTALL_MASK).
>>>>>
>>>>> The current news item draft raises question like "When the
>>>>> 'actual configuration' is in
>>>>> /lib/systemd/network/99-default.link... what will happen to
>>>>> people without systemd (and a INSTALL_MASK set)?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Would be nice if the news item and Wiki could handle upgrade path
>>>>> for systemd *and* non-systemd users...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You need to remove /lib/systemd/ from INSTALL_MASK. If you don't
>>>> want unit files, mask /lib/systemd/system/ instead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ..it'd be worth adding this little tidbit to the news item, probably...
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. I poked around on the wiki a bit to try and find any reference
>> to INSTALL_MASK and systemd, but didn't find anything.
>
> Minor note, also not using systemd (or udev, for that matter), but out of
> curiosity, I checked my x86_64 system and I don't have a /lib/systemd
> directory.  Looks like everything is in /usr/lib/systemd instead.  So, this
> might be a good item to document somewhere (possibly the wiki), so people
> aren't confused and add the wrong directories to INSTALL_MASK (or other
> relevant variables)
>

I really just meant to correct any existing documentation which may exist.

Adding both /lib/systemd/systemd and /usr/lib/systemd/system should be
fairly safe.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Peter Stuge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1104 bytes --]

Lars Wendler wrote:
> >> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd
> >> crap.
> >
> >childish. me don't like pink ponies. pink too much. pony okay.
> 
> Riiight... as udev has anything else to do with systemd other than
> being uselessly integrated into systemd whereas it can still work on
> its own with no whatsoever relation to systemd. But yes, totally
> childish...

I wouldn't say childish but it doesn't seem too useful to me. It
seems clear (at least to me) that even if there isn't so tight
integration of udev with systemd today it's reasonable to expect
that there will be tight integration in the soonish future, as
upstream continues to move in the direction they like.

There's nothing wrong per se with a future udev ebuild which
applies a mega-patch onto systemd sources in order to get udevd
standalone but I think that's probably not the most useful
contribution you can make to Gentoo, Lars.

Of course in the end you should work on what you like, but in your
place I would probably focus on something else, probably eudev.


//Peter

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1769 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:46:23 +0100 Peter Stuge wrote:

>Lars Wendler wrote:
>> >> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd
>> >> crap.
>> >
>> >childish. me don't like pink ponies. pink too much. pony okay.
>> 
>> Riiight... as udev has anything else to do with systemd other than
>> being uselessly integrated into systemd whereas it can still work on
>> its own with no whatsoever relation to systemd. But yes, totally
>> childish...
>
>I wouldn't say childish but it doesn't seem too useful to me. It
>seems clear (at least to me) that even if there isn't so tight
>integration of udev with systemd today it's reasonable to expect
>that there will be tight integration in the soonish future, as
>upstream continues to move in the direction they like.
>
>There's nothing wrong per se with a future udev ebuild which
>applies a mega-patch onto systemd sources in order to get udevd
>standalone but I think that's probably not the most useful
>contribution you can make to Gentoo, Lars.
>
>Of course in the end you should work on what you like, but in your
>place I would probably focus on something else, probably eudev.
>
>
>//Peter

As long as it's feasible I will continue patching the systemd crap out
of udev. 
The worst part always was and still is the man pages as one cannot
re-use previous patches on them. Whatever systemd maniacs are doing
there, it's the most time consuming part of the patching. 
The fun part is, it's still quite easy to get udev standalone without
anything being related to systemd (with the exception of the systemd
unit files which still can be used with my ebuilds).

-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:46:23 +0100 Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>>Lars Wendler wrote:
>>> >> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd
>>> >> crap.
>>> >
>>> >childish. me don't like pink ponies. pink too much. pony okay.
>>>
>>> Riiight... as udev has anything else to do with systemd other than
>>> being uselessly integrated into systemd whereas it can still work on
>>> its own with no whatsoever relation to systemd. But yes, totally
>>> childish...
>>
>>I wouldn't say childish but it doesn't seem too useful to me. It
>>seems clear (at least to me) that even if there isn't so tight
>>integration of udev with systemd today it's reasonable to expect
>>that there will be tight integration in the soonish future, as
>>upstream continues to move in the direction they like.
>>
>>There's nothing wrong per se with a future udev ebuild which
>>applies a mega-patch onto systemd sources in order to get udevd
>>standalone but I think that's probably not the most useful
>>contribution you can make to Gentoo, Lars.
>>
>>Of course in the end you should work on what you like, but in your
>>place I would probably focus on something else, probably eudev.
>>
>>
>>//Peter
>
> As long as it's feasible I will continue patching the systemd crap out
> of udev.
> The worst part always was and still is the man pages as one cannot
> re-use previous patches on them. Whatever systemd maniacs are doing
> there, it's the most time consuming part of the patching.
> The fun part is, it's still quite easy to get udev standalone without
> anything being related to systemd (with the exception of the systemd
> unit files which still can be used with my ebuilds).
>

Don't oversell this; your changes are purely cosmetic and really
amount to renaming a few files. udev still includes code from several
systemd helper libraries; it just gets linked in statically.

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/24/2014 12:32 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
> 
> 
Should means required now? Man if I only knew that last week...

- -Zero
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=Wu3S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/04/14 23:15, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> On 02/24/2014 12:32 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
> > sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
>
>
> Should means required now? Man if I only knew that last week...
>

Sorry?

[gentoo-dev] Re: News item draft for >=sys-fs/udev-209 upgrade

[Duncan]

Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina posted on Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:15:28 -0400 as
excerpted:

> On 02/24/2014 12:32 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> If it's okay, I'd want to post this fast, before adding KEYWORDS to
>> sys-fs/udev-209's ebuild
>> 
>> 
> Should means required now? Man if I only knew that last week...

In practice, I believe "should", in both the strict RFC sense and as 
normally used, normally means:

"Not literally /required/, but if you don't, chances are pretty good 
you'll come to regret it at some point, and if perchance you don't, 
someone else almost certainly will."

... Which would seem to fit the current situation rather well.  
Regardless of whether the original actors yet regret it (I imagine they 
do but I'm not them), I'm absolutely positive there's at least one other 
person (me) that does, and I'd guess much of the list would add 
themselves to that list as well.

What big ruckus might we have never known might have been, were only one 
particular "should" followed at the appropriate point...

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman