Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 2/9/16 6:59 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users?
>>>
>>> gentoo is very unpopular as a distro.  however, it excels as a meta
>>> distro.  if you marginalize its special features, you take away all its
>>> charm.
>>
>> Gentoo's special feature is that it is source-based, not that it uses
>> a different udev implementation from everybody else by default.
>
> that's not what i said.

You implied that I'm marginalizing Gentoo's special features.  I don't
see how using a different udev implementation than 99% of the linux
install base is one of Gentoo's special features.

But, by all means clarify what you do mean if I'm misunderstanding
your point.  Or, if it

>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Look, I get it, some people don't like systemd.  That's fine.
>>>> However, you have to realize at this point that a non-systemd
>>>> configuration is anything but mainstream.
>>>
>>> neither is a system based on musl or uclibc, but if you need an embedded
>>> system, then these are "mainstream".
>>
>> Sure, but they're also not defaults.
>
> this is circular argumentation.  they are not default where they are not
> default.  and they are where they are.
>
> you simply want to privilege a certain set of targeted systems
> (desktop/server) over another set (embedded).

Gentoo's default virtual providers are almost universally focused on
desktop/server systems.

Even if you accept the argument that eudev is more suitable for
embedded, it would be just one more virtual in a sea of virtuals whose
defaults are not ideal in the embedded world.

If somebody wants to create an extension to profiles where you can
change the order of virtual defaults so that you can have an embedded
default that preferes uclibc over glibc more power to them.

However, in distro we're maintaining today everything is focused on
desktop/server.

>
>>
>>>
>>> anyhow, the argument in the subject is the order of udev and eudev in
>>> the virtual, not systemd vs eudev.
>>
>> And that is about defaults.
>
> nope.  currently stages come with sys-fs/udev as default.

The whole point of this thread is that somebody wants to change this.
Inevitably changing the defaults requires having a big slug-fest over
which new default is better.  And that is why I made the suggestion to
try to moot the decision by just making this part of the handbook.

Of course this is going to be a contentious discussion.  Of course
people are going to get upset about this.

I'm sorry if my suggestion to make the default less relevant seems
like a diversion to the original point of the thread, but I actually
see that as the only way to actually RESOLVE the thread.  Otherwise
this just turns into a which-implementation-is-better slugfest, which
is what we're having right now.

>>>
>>>  There will always be a
>>>> "poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux
>>>> without sysfs or some other obscure practice.
>>>
>>> no, more like special uses. you're framing the issue based on your
>>> notion of "mainstream"
>>
>> My notion of mainstream, and Fedora's, and Debian's, and RHEL's, and Arch's...
>
> correct, that is your notion.  in the grand scheme of things windows is
> mainstream and fedora, debian, etc are just marginal.
>
> you're missing the point that the style of argumentation you're taking
> is one of a particular view that you privilege.

No argument that different people use Gentoo for different reasons,
and they're going to weigh more heavily the arguments that emphasize
their own preferences.

The problem is that ultimately with the design of Gentoo there can
only be ONE default virtual/udev provider.

There are many ways to resolve this:
1.  Somebody just unilaterally changes the default.  (Not likely to
work - just leads to revert wars and nonsense in the repo.)
2.  Eventually the council is asked to pick a winner.  (The council
will likely not want to do this, and no matter what they pick a huge
portion of the distro will probably be upset about it).
3.  Make the default unimportant by making this part of the handbook.
(This is what we do with emacs vs vim, and it has the side benefit of
being more appropriate for installs that don't even need a udev
implementation.)

Historically Gentoo has tended to take the approach of #3.  This
avoids having to wage huge battles over stuff like this.  I think that
would be more productive than the two of us going back and forth about
whose baby is uglier.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system.  imo a
>>>>> stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, a stage4 based on systemd makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> not for embedded and the things i work on.  these have users.
>>>
>>
>> Systemd makes plenty of sense for many embedded solutions.  For the
>> kinds of solutions where it doesn't make sense, I'm not sure that
>> linux makes sense.
>
> like?  embedded os has avoided systemd like the plague.  they opt for
> busybox mdev.

For a box where RAM is at a super-premium, even the Linux kernel may
be too much to ask for.

If RAM isn't at much of a premium (hundreds of MB), then systemd runs
just fine and it has a lot of features that support homeostatis which
I'd think would be an important feature in an embedded system.  Its
only real downside is its newness.

>
> the assumption here is that Gentoo is a single distribution where its
> from source nature makes it a meta distribution.  so you create a false
> dichotomy between gentoo and "tiney distros whose main purpose"  Many of
> those "tiny distros" are gentoo because gentoo is a set covering many
> derivatives.

And those distros can still exist no matter what the default udev
provider is.  I'm all for preserving choice.  I just don't think that
eudev is an appropriate default for the sorts of use cases where any
of our other default providers make sense.

>
> the reason i'm engaging in this is not because of the default.  the
> reason i'm engaging in this dialogue is because of the repeated
> reduction in vision as to what "from source" means.
>

Again, I'm not suggesting taking away choice at all.  In fact, my
suggestion was to move this into the handbook to give users more
choice than they have today.

There is already a thread on gentoo-user asking how to safely switch
from udev->eudev.  If that were just a part of the handbook that isn't
even a migration they'd have to make on a new install.  Nor would
udev->systemd.

To summarize my goals in this thread:
1.  Suggest that rather than picking a winner we instead just let the
user pick the winner.
2.  Demonstrate the futility of actually trying to pick a winner,
because we all have different values on this subject.

-- 
Rich