From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S7ju0-0003wi-TA for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:49:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C171E08BA; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:49:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arsenic.logifi.fr (arsenic.logifi.fr [217.108.178.219]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 720E2E0917 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nicolas-desktop (unknown [192.168.8.78]) by arsenic.logifi.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335271FFB9; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:48:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:48:33 +0100 From: Nicolas Sebrecht To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Nicolas Sebrecht Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-( Message-ID: <20120314084833.GA2443@nicolas-desktop> References: <20120311090912.GA23850@waltdnes.org> <20120312092432.GA2959@acm.acm> <20120313073306.GC23544@waltdnes.org> <20120313130534.GB3457@acm.acm> <20120313190052.GA2430@waltdnes.org> <20120313194727.GB2536@acm.acm> <1652548889.629847.1331672072496.JavaMail.open-xchange@email.1and1.com> <2037392466.632130.1331674505331.JavaMail.open-xchange@email.1and1.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2037392466.632130.1331674505331.JavaMail.open-xchange@email.1and1.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 150a596a-fb93-482f-9c19-b50b9ac9c4cf X-Archives-Hash: eaf86b64d6a792078ec2664695a2c1b1 The 13/03/12, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote: > > So, what qualifies for "the moment a "fringe" program reaches critical mass > to become "maistream", the probability of it needing udev (directly or > indirectly) will increase." > > Again, quoting _your_ definition. > > I gave you examples of programs which have reached critical mass, which > don't require udev. > > And, I'm not attaching your character, for I know you not ... just > attacking your FUD! This is not FUD. And more importantly, what Canek says is certainly true. In the past, the kernel was handling devices alone. Since udev, the possibility for userland programs to hook themselves in this process became very easy. Some of them have use this feature very early but we can reasonably think the work is not totally achieved. Also, developers write code given the context at the time it is written. But the changing context doesn't necessarily imply other programs to be rewritten at the same time. Once the context changed, we can reasonably think that currently "working code not going to be hacked soon" will be rewritten in the longer run to take advantage of this udev facility. Pointing to this fact is not FUD. I'd say it is nice analysis which could even help the current udev -> mdev effort by providing a different picture of the landscape. -- Nicolas Sebrecht