[gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

Dear Everyone,

It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505

After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
things. We will announce the project later this week.

I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
month so that we have time to get organized?

Yours truly,
Richard Yao


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> month so that we have time to get organized?

Seems counterproductive.  Most likely a reasonably long period of time
would be set aside before a new udev is stabilized.  If an alternative
emerges in the meantime, then those who want to use it can do so, and
be spared the need to use initramfs for separate /usr, or whatever.

Gentoo is about choice, and as long as a dev is willing to maintain a
fork there is no reason not to support it.

However, the udev team has been on hold for quite a while over this
issue already.

That said, competition is good for everybody.  Best of luck with it!

Just my own two cents...

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 369 bytes --]

On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> month so that we have time to get organized?

The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting.

Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
>> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
>> month so that we have time to get organized?
>
> The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting.
>

Huh?

2. Handling separate /usr support[1] (15 minutes)
   - approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and
     implement one of the two "supported" solutions)
   - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript
   - define timeframe
     * 30 days
     * 6 months
     * 1 year

3. Policy on "<" versioned dependencies[2] (5 minutes)
   - state whether said policy exists (homework for the council members)

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

On 13-11-2012 09:06:19 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> >> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> >> month so that we have time to get organized?
> >
> > The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting.
> >
> 
> Huh?

Do you see the word "vote" in there?  (It isn't in there on purpose.)

Fabian


> 2. Handling separate /usr support[1] (15 minutes)
>    - approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and
>      implement one of the two "supported" solutions)
>    - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript
>    - define timeframe
>      * 30 days
>      * 6 months
>      * 1 year
> 
> 3. Policy on "<" versioned dependencies[2] (5 minutes)
>    - state whether said policy exists (homework for the council members)

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Ian Stakenvicius]

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

On 13/11/12 10:44 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 13-11-2012 09:06:19 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Fabian Groffen
>> <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>>>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic
>>>> related to udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay
>>>> the vote for another month so that we have time to get
>>>> organized?
>>> 
>>> The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting.
>>> 
>> 
>> Huh?
> 
> Do you see the word "vote" in there?  (It isn't in there on
> purpose.)
> 
> Fabian
> 
> 
>> 2. Handling separate /usr support[1] (15 minutes) -
>> approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and 
>> implement one of the two "supported" solutions) -
>> approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript - define
>> timeframe * 30 days * 6 months * 1 year
>> 


In Rich and Ryao's defense, I would think it would be difficult to
approve or disapprove of anything without voting on it.  :)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlCia0sACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBDTQD/c7q/B1R+/nHTALnIi/X4WYuY
+VZB7PKDkflXD9ws23QA/1LT8C/0+1NTgO8wVOBfl8kVdlB+25kTeN4hcYWdJzNp
=3LrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:44:15 +0100
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 13-11-2012 09:06:19 -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Fabian Groffen
> > <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > >> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic
> > >> related to udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the
> > >> vote for another month so that we have time to get organized?
> > >
> > > The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting.
> > >
> > 
> > Huh?
> 
> Do you see the word "vote" in there?  (It isn't in there on purpose.)
> 

what's the difference between 'approve/disapprove' and 'vote' ? the
difference is not clear to me.

> 
> > 2. Handling separate /usr support[1] (15 minutes)
> >    - approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and
> >      implement one of the two "supported" solutions)
> >    - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript
> >    - define timeframe
> >      * 30 days
> >      * 6 months
> >      * 1 year
> > 
> > 3. Policy on "<" versioned dependencies[2] (5 minutes)
> >    - state whether said policy exists (homework for the council
> > members)
> 

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 512 bytes --]

On 13-11-2012 12:48:06 -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Do you see the word "vote" in there?  (It isn't in there on purpose.)
> 
> what's the difference between 'approve/disapprove' and 'vote' ? the
> difference is not clear to me.

When the council votes on something it becomes policy, or something like
that.  In this case I deem that to be unwise given that it seems very
unclear what the full picture on this matter is going to become.

Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Ian Stakenvicius]

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

On 13/11/12 01:08 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 13-11-2012 12:48:06 -0300, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>>> Do you see the word "vote" in there?  (It isn't in there on
>>> purpose.)
>> 
>> what's the difference between 'approve/disapprove' and 'vote' ?
>> the difference is not clear to me.
> 
> When the council votes on something it becomes policy, or something
> like that.  In this case I deem that to be unwise given that it
> seems very unclear what the full picture on this matter is going to
> become.
> 
> Fabian
> 

...  Except that is specifically what WilliamH is requesting --
policy, that any user planning to use a separate /usr on gentoo for
linux be required to either use an initramfs or busybox[sep-usr]; ie,
the two methods that allow /usr to be mounted early enough to blur any
technical limitations between separating / and /usr (on linux)

Right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iF4EAREIAAYFAlCilDYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBAkgEAhE53uckuLwWZ52NLLyzgKeM6
mZgqWhhqbc4qYWb/EjgA/1E/vL7hb9wF+iAtKs/IFjjOSjN0rJ6CXPY4w8qCyIq1
=hRmD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> ...  Except that is specifically what WilliamH is requesting --
> policy, that any user planning to use a separate /usr on gentoo for
> linux be required to either use an initramfs or busybox[sep-usr]; ie,
> the two methods that allow /usr to be mounted early enough to blur any
> technical limitations between separating / and /usr (on linux)
>
> Right?

Yup, though whether you call it a policy or guidance or whatever, the
bottom line is the same.

I think what this boils down to is that there are masked versions of
packages out there which will break systems that have a separate /usr
that don't get it mounted early in boot.  Those who maintain them want
to get them out into testing, and eventually make them stable.
They're holding off to allow everybody to migrate.

It sounds like we might or might not have another migration option,
which is great.  However, considering a pre-req is going to be having
things like the relevant genkernel stable first I think it makes sense
to at least get the ball rolling.

I think we need some kind of timeline for moving this along - most of
the pieces are in place now, and we just need to coordinate moving
them into stable and sending out communications and having a timeline
for users to make their changes, whether that is an initramfs, or a
udev alternative, or early boot scripts, or whatever.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1694 bytes --]

El mar, 13-11-2012 a las 09:06 -0500, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 12-11-2012 21:40:53 -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> >> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> >> month so that we have time to get organized?
> >
> > The Council has no votes scheduled for today's meeting.
> >
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 2. Handling separate /usr support[1] (15 minutes)
>    - approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and
>      implement one of the two "supported" solutions)
>    - approve/disapprove removal of gen_usr_ldscript
>    - define timeframe
>      * 30 days
>      * 6 months
>      * 1 year
> 
> 3. Policy on "<" versioned dependencies[2] (5 minutes)
>    - state whether said policy exists (homework for the council members)
> 
> Rich
> 
> 

And why not allow that new version to be stabilized and add a third
option (until fork is clarified) over initramfs and busybox options:
people having splitted /usr partition and don't wanting to use any of
the other two options can simply hardmask newer udev locally that won't
be dropped until that month to clarify the fork.

We are already waiting for months for getting newer udev stabilized...
needing to wait another month for even taking a decision on that looks
depressing to me and people don't having splitted /usr isn't even
affected by this one. Also would be nice to know if the plans to fork
udev are only to let it handle separate /usr partition or more changes
(that could need more and more months)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 21:04 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> Also would be nice to know if the plans to fork
> udev are only to let it handle separate /usr partition or more changes
> (that could need more and more months) 

The perceived potential for this project to overrun does not exist. I
have committed, on personal title, to have this done for the next
meeting or to go away and admit defeat.
Please see the meeting logs if you do not believe me.

Regards,
Tony V.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon
<chainsaw@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 21:04 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> Also would be nice to know if the plans to fork
>> udev are only to let it handle separate /usr partition or more changes
>> (that could need more and more months)
>
> The perceived potential for this project to overrun does not exist. I
> have committed, on personal title, to have this done for the next
> meeting or to go away and admit defeat.
> Please see the meeting logs if you do not believe me.

My main reason for going along with this was that with a few blockers
left, I think it is likely to be a few weeks before we're ready to
start the migration window anyway.

Work on the blockers can continue (openrc, genkernel, etc), and we can
start working on news items as well.  If that all goes smoothly
perhaps there won't be as much pressure for the migration window to be
a long one.

Something that did come up was whether we can use profiles to manage
the masks so that users can make the choice of when they move.  We can
very well deprecate old profiles and set timelines and such to ease
things on maintainers, but this approach would let individuals control
their destiny a bit more.  It would also make things easier for
earlier adopters - we could stabilize all the packages even but leave
them masked on the non-migrated profile.  The profile could also
control shared library movement to /usr as discussed previously as
well.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Markos Chandras]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
>
> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>
> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>
> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> month so that we have time to get organized?
>
> Yours truly,
> Richard Yao
>

Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
problems with us and they might be interested
in helping us out.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 11/13/2012 04:31 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao<ryao@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>> Dear Everyone,
>>
>> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>>
>> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>>
>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
>> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
>> month so that we have time to get organized?
>>
>> Yours truly,
>> Richard Yao
>>
> Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
> problems with us and they might be interested
> in helping us out.
>

We already thought of that.  Does anyone know someone at debian?

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

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Markos Chandras]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 04:31 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao<ryao@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Everyone,
>>>
>>> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>>> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>>> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>>> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>>> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>>>
>>> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>>> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>>> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>>> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>>>
>>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
>>> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
>>> month so that we have time to get organized?
>>>
>>> Yours truly,
>>> Richard Yao
>>>
>> Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
>> problems with us and they might be interested
>> in helping us out.
>>
>
> We already thought of that.  Does anyone know someone at debian?
>
> --
> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
> E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
> GnuPG ID  : D0455535
>
>

Not me, but I guess this needs to be posted on a mailing list instead
of contacting a single person or team.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 11/13/2012 07:07 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile<blueness@gentoo.org>  wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 04:31 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao<ryao@gentoo.org>   wrote:
>>>> Dear Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>>>> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>>>> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>>>> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>>>> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>>>>
>>>> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>>>> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>>>> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>>>> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
>>>> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
>>>> month so that we have time to get organized?
>>>>
>>>> Yours truly,
>>>> Richard Yao
>>>>
>>> Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
>>> problems with us and they might be interested
>>> in helping us out.
>>>
>> We already thought of that.  Does anyone know someone at debian?
>>
>> --
>> Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
>> Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
>> E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
>> GnuPG FP  : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88  33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
>> GnuPG ID  : D0455535
>>
>>
> Not me, but I guess this needs to be posted on a mailing list instead
> of contacting a single person or team.
>
Let's get something going before we start involving people.  I'm 
planning on trying to gut out systemd stuff and reduce it to just udev 
code on Thursday.  Once this looks like a viable starting point we can 
get other distros involved.

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

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1582 bytes --]

I think we also ought to contact Linus, to have some input on what the
forked-udev (vdev? gdev? nlpdev?) *shouldn't* be. Lest we tread the same
path that led to him calling udev 'stupid'.

Just my 2 cents. Apologies if it's worthless :-|

Rgds,
--
 On Nov 13, 2012 4:32 PM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Dear Everyone,
> >
> > It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
> > has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
> > Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
> > seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
> > that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
> >
> > After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
> > concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
> > eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
> > things. We will announce the project later this week.
> >
> > I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> > udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> > month so that we have time to get organized?
> >
> > Yours truly,
> > Richard Yao
> >
>
> Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
> problems with us and they might be interested
> in helping us out.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2153 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Richard Yao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1776 bytes --]

I plan to CC him when I make the official project announcement.

On 11/13/2012 06:49 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> I think we also ought to contact Linus, to have some input on what the
> forked-udev (vdev? gdev? nlpdev?) *shouldn't* be. Lest we tread the same
> path that led to him calling udev 'stupid'.
> 
> Just my 2 cents. Apologies if it's worthless :-|
> 
> Rgds,
> --
>  On Nov 13, 2012 4:32 PM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Dear Everyone,
>>>
>>> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>>> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>>> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>>> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>>> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>>>
>>> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>>> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>>> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>>> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>>>
>>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
>>> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
>>> month so that we have time to get organized?
>>>
>>> Yours truly,
>>> Richard Yao
>>>
>>
>> Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
>> problems with us and they might be interested
>> in helping us out.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>>
>>
> 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Markos Chandras]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I plan to CC him when I make the official project announcement.
>
> On 11/13/2012 06:49 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> I think we also ought to contact Linus, to have some input on what the
>> forked-udev (vdev? gdev? nlpdev?) *shouldn't* be. Lest we tread the same
>> path that led to him calling udev 'stupid'.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. Apologies if it's worthless :-|
>>
>> Rgds,
>> --
>>  On Nov 13, 2012 4:32 PM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Dear Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>>>> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>>>> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>>>> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>>>> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>>>>
>>>> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>>>> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>>>> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>>>> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
>>>> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
>>>> month so that we have time to get organized?
>>>>
>>>> Yours truly,
>>>> Richard Yao
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you tried contacting other distros? They may face the same
>>> problems with us and they might be interested
>>> in helping us out.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Please don't top-post. It messes this thread really bad.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --]

On Nov 13, 2012 10:09 PM, "Markos Chandras" <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>
> Please don't top-post. It messes this thread really bad.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
>

My bad. Sorry.

In my defense, Gmail Android was acting up on me, and I haven't had a cup
of coffee...

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 493 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Samuli Suominen]

On 13/11/12 04:40, Richard Yao wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
>
> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>
> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>
> I understand that the council is scheduled to vote on a topic related to
> udev stabilization. Would it be possible to delay the vote for another
> month so that we have time to get organized?
>
> Yours truly,
> Richard Yao
>

I honestly think you will run out of manpower rather sooner than later 
but good luck anyway.

The stabilization of new udev shouldn't be delayed anymore.
News item can be assigned to inform users sep. /usr is not possible with 
official udev without initramfs.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 227 bytes --]

On 14-11-2012 08:42:47 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> The stabilization of new udev shouldn't be delayed anymore.

We reached a different conclusion yesterday.

Fabian

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 14-11-2012 08:42:47 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> The stabilization of new udev shouldn't be delayed anymore.
>
> We reached a different conclusion yesterday.

I think the end result of the council decision won't really involve
further delay of things for udev.  There are a few blockers to resolve
still, so waiting another meeting will allow both efforts to continue
to make progress, and then when we send out communications to users we
can offer them all the viable options.

The council isn't really introducing delay until everything is ready
for udev to go stable other than the go-ahead to give users n days to
migrate to a separate /usr solution.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Ben de Groot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1056 bytes --]

On 13 November 2012 10:40, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Dear Everyone,
>
> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>
> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>


I applaud this initiative. I would recommend you contact, and try to work
together with, the existing fork of udev, which is available in layman's
udev overlay. There is a corresponding thread on our forums.

-- 
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1502 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1315 bytes --]

On Nov 14, 2012 4:08 PM, "Ben de Groot" <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 13 November 2012 10:40, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Everyone,
>>
>> It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>> has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>> Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>> seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>> that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>>
>> After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>> concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>> eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>> things. We will announce the project later this week.
>
>
>
> I applaud this initiative. I would recommend you contact, and try to work
together with, the existing fork of udev, which is available in layman's
udev overlay. There is a corresponding thread on our forums.
>

Great! So that means, we already have something to show to other distros,
then?

And we already have ryao, blueness, and chainsaw all expressing their
desire of forking udev (apologies if I left anyone).

Hmm... need a roll-call, I guess...

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1738 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:07:26PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 13 November 2012 10:40, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Everyone,
> >
> > It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
> > has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
> > Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
> > seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
> > that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
> >
> > After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
> > concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
> > eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
> > things. We will announce the project later this week.
> >
> 
> 
> I applaud this initiative. I would recommend you contact, and try to work
> together with, the existing fork of udev, which is available in layman's
> udev overlay. There is a corresponding thread on our forums.

I already tried to open a dialog with these guys; they seem pretty
hostile; another "our way or the highway" approach seemed to be going on
there [1].

William

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/437570

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1717 bytes --]

On Nov 15, 2012 2:16 AM, "William Hubbs" <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:07:26PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > On 13 November 2012 10:40, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Everyone,
> > >
> > > It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that
udev
> > > has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That
includes
> > > Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
> > > seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
> > > that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
> > >
> > > After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
> > > concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
> > > eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
> > > things. We will announce the project later this week.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I applaud this initiative. I would recommend you contact, and try to
work
> > together with, the existing fork of udev, which is available in layman's
> > udev overlay. There is a corresponding thread on our forums.
>
> I already tried to open a dialog with these guys; they seem pretty
> hostile; another "our way or the highway" approach seemed to be going on
> there [1].
>
> William
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/437570

The way I see it, hostilities erupted when Suominen dismissed with great
prejudice (and a not insignificant amount of jeer) the idea of
udev-forking.

That immediately put the passionate people behind the forked-udev to be in
the defensive.

And you were not really acting as a mediator there William :-)

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2332 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Markos Chandras]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:15 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 05:07:26PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
>> On 13 November 2012 10:40, Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Everyone,
>> >
>> > It is no secret that many of us are unhappy with the direction that udev
>> > has taken under the leadership of the systemd developers. That includes
>> > Linus Torvalds, who is 'leery of the fact that the udev maintenance
>> > seems to have gone into some "crazy mode" where they have made changes
>> > that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity.'
>> >
>> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
>> >
>> > After speaking with several other Gentoo developers that share Linus'
>> > concerns, I have decided to form a team to fork udev. Our plan is to
>> > eliminate the separate /usr requirement from our fork, among other
>> > things. We will announce the project later this week.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I applaud this initiative. I would recommend you contact, and try to work
>> together with, the existing fork of udev, which is available in layman's
>> udev overlay. There is a corresponding thread on our forums.
>
> I already tried to open a dialog with these guys; they seem pretty
> hostile; another "our way or the highway" approach seemed to be going on
> there [1].
>
> William
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/437570

Who isn't in the OSS world? :) However, they seem to have a valid
design and a goal (similar to ours) so why not try to work things out?

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2