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

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

[Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1565 bytes --]

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.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1872 bytes --]

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

[Alex Xu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1775 bytes --]

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.


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

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

[Samuli Suominen]

On 24/02/14 19:48, 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.

no, it doesn't. it's an executable that should be ran within the init
script only, and has no business in living in $PATH. the only reason we
still
had it in /sbin, was me sturbornly avoiding /lib/systemd directory since
the systemd-udevd would have been the only file there, which is
no longer the case.

> - 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

> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd crap.

childish. me don't like pink ponies. pink too much. pony okay.

>
> 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.
>

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

[Joshua Kinard]

On 02/24/2014 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
> 

There's another option, too: mdev, from busybox:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev

It works well if you have a rather simple system.  I.e., for me, headless
machines (most of the time), PS/2 KB and mouse when not headless, one
network interface (wired, no wifi), separate /usr, no disk encryption, and
use static IP addresses (IPv4, IPv6).

Additionally, there is a sep-usr flag to the busybox package that people
running /usr on a different partition might want to look into.  It installs
a /ginit file that assists in getting /usr mounted early enough w/o a
initramfs so that things don't break.  Though, I am also not using that on
my x86_64 box and it boots fine, so YMMV.

-- 
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

[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.