On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500 Richard Yao wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100 > > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > > > >> Alexis Ballier schrieb: > >>>>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using > >>>>> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have > >>>>> to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely > >>>>> old considering all the flux that has been around kbus. > >>>> > >>>> OpenRC itself can for now just ignore kdbus, bus1, or whatever kernel > >>>> IPC system comes next. > >>> > >>> Well, as Lennart wrote it, kbus would have needed some initialisation. > >>> Just like we have a dbus init script, openrc would have a kdbus one. > >>> > >>>> But if upstream udev makes use of the systemd > >>>> userspace interface to the kernel IPC system, then OpenRC would have > >>>> to implement the same interface in order to have working udev. > >>> > >>> As I understand it, a kernel IPC doesn't need systemd to work. udev > >>> might use wrappers from libsystemd, or libbus1, just like we have > >>> programs using libv4l or libbluetooth currently. > >> > >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together > >> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): > >> > >> "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options: > >> a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate systemd that much, but > >> love udev so much, then implement an alternative userspace for kdbus to > >> do initialiuzation/policy/activation." > >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html > >> > >> So it seems a bit more than only initialization is needed. > > > > You're missing the third option which is a sane option, and jump > > straight to pitchforks. > > > > As I see it, *if* this becomes a necessity, we're quite like are going > > to provide KDBUS parts of systemd the way we provide udev parts right > > now. After all, libsystemd-bus will be useful to more applications. > > > > Of course, someone may want to fork that into libebus just for the sake > > of renaming. > > > > And after all, as it has already been noted, there are people > > interested in maintaining non-systemd userspace for KDBUS. Which is > > kinda the obvious choice, unlike forking something. > > kdbus is dead. It is fatally flawed and Greg is no longer trying to get it merged as he is not updating his branch for newer kernel versions. If I recall correctly, kdbus was also removed from Fedora and has no distribution backing it anymore. Then... why are we even discussing this? -- Best regards, Michał Górny