[gentoo-user] Fwd: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[gentoo-user] Fwd: [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization

[Dale]

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



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization
Date: 	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:40:53 -0500
From: 	Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
Reply-To: 	gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
To: 	gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org


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
>

Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!   Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.  

I wonder what they will name it tho.  

Dale

:-)  :-)  

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2849 bytes --]

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

[Michael Hampicke]

Am 13.11.2012 04:20, schrieb Dale:
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization
> Date: 	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:40:53 -0500
> From: 	Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
> Reply-To: 	gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
> To: 	gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
> 
> 
> 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
>>
> 
> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!   Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.  
> 
> I wonder what they will name it tho.  
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)  
> 

What about gdev (gentoo dev) :)

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

[Dale]

Michael Hampicke wrote:
> Am 13.11.2012 04:20, schrieb Dale:
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	[gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization
>> Date: 	Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:40:53 -0500
>> From: 	Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
>> Reply-To: 	gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
>> To: 	gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!   Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.  
>>
>> I wonder what they will name it tho.  
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)  
>>
> What about gdev (gentoo dev) :)
>
>

That could work but since Linus thinks it is stupid the way udev is
headed, I was thinking about smartdev.  That would be the opposite of
stupiddev I guess.  lol

I don't care what the name is, I just hope it works out not only for
Gentoo but for other distros that don't like the direction udev is going. 

Thanks to Richard and everyone else who is going to be working on this. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

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

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2615 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. Probably worthless :-|

Rgds,
--
 On Nov 13, 2012 4:26 PM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Hampicke wrote:
> > Am 13.11.2012 04:20, schrieb Dale:
> >>
> >> -------- Original Message --------
> >> Subject:     [gentoo-project] With regard to udev stabilization
> >> Date:        Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:40:53 -0500
> >> From:        Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>
> >> Reply-To:    gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
> >> To:  gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!   Me,
> I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run when
> it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.
> >>
> >> I wonder what they will name it tho.
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> :-)  :-)
> >>
> > What about gdev (gentoo dev) :)
> >
> >
>
> That could work but since Linus thinks it is stupid the way udev is
> headed, I was thinking about smartdev.  That would be the opposite of
> stupiddev I guess.  lol
>
> I don't care what the name is, I just hope it works out not only for
> Gentoo but for other distros that don't like the direction udev is going.
>
> Thanks to Richard and everyone else who is going to be working on this.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
> how you interpreted my words!
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3677 bytes --]

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

[Bruce Hill]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote:
> 
> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!   Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.  
> 
> I wonder what they will name it tho.  
> 
> Dale

There is at least one other fork of udev:

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-934678-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-200.html?sid=052fe76e4eb5977fd2eb5a59e40fc0ff

Haven't visited it in a while.

Having >=sys-fs/udev-181 in /etc/portage/package.mask has allowed me to avoid
the insanity that Kay and Lennart have done to udev. Works very well on 9
Gentoo systems on this LAN atm.
-- 
Happy Penguin Gymnastics              >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
admin@happypenguingymnastics.com
662-321-7009
http://happypenguingymnastics.com/
FB: http://tiny.cc/HappyPenguinGymnastics

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

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

[pk]

On 2012-11-13 04:20, Dale wrote:

> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.
>Yeppie !!   Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this
>works and giving it a test run when it gets ready.
>Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.  

Beautiful news indeed! Thanks for the heads up Dale!

> I wonder what they will name it tho.  

They could name it whatever they want, I don't really care, as long as
it works as it should... :-)

Best regards

Peter K

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

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
> 
> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!  Me,
> I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run
> when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.

  Might even get me to come back to udev.  I wonder which group will be
setting the specs as far as "the official udev" is concerned.  The
Gentoo devs should seek support from other distros and Linus himself.
If we merely make a fork, and the systemd people still have the
"official version", we'll be doomed to slavishly follow them in "bug
compatability" mode.  What happens if/when Lennart gets his way?
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration
> into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
>
> (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case
> you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we
> can drop that support entirely.)

  And that's probably not the only thing that the systemd people could
do to jerk us around.  A successful fork would need to be one that
hardware companies release drivers for, and that GNOME/KDE will support.

  I still think that the fork team should look at where mdev doesn't
match udev, and write shims to add the missing functionality.  The
busybox people obviously don't want to bloat their minimal version.  But
it already does most of what is needed, so some shims to add missing
functionality there would be less effort than an entire udev fork.

> I wonder what they will name it tho.

  Howsabout calling it "Woodstock"?  We could even have our own cheer

Gimmee an EFF

EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Gimmee an OOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Gimmee an ARR

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Gimmee a  KAY

KAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

What's that spell?

FORK!

What's that spell?

FORK!

What's that spell?

FORK!

  Now all we need is a quarter of a million people screaming in unison.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

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

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2685 bytes --]

On Nov 14, 2012 10:02 AM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
> >
> > Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!  Me,
> > I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test run
> > when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long, I hope.
>
>   Might even get me to come back to udev.  I wonder which group will be
> setting the specs as far as "the official udev" is concerned.  The
> Gentoo devs should seek support from other distros and Linus himself.
> If we merely make a fork, and the systemd people still have the
> "official version", we'll be doomed to slavishly follow them in "bug
> compatability" mode.  What happens if/when Lennart gets his way?
>
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
>
> > And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration
> > into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems.
> >
> > (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case
> > you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we
> > can drop that support entirely.)
>
>   And that's probably not the only thing that the systemd people could
> do to jerk us around.  A successful fork would need to be one that
> hardware companies release drivers for, and that GNOME/KDE will support.
>
>   I still think that the fork team should look at where mdev doesn't
> match udev, and write shims to add the missing functionality.  The
> busybox people obviously don't want to bloat their minimal version.  But
> it already does most of what is needed, so some shims to add missing
> functionality there would be less effort than an entire udev fork.
>
> > I wonder what they will name it tho.
>
>   Howsabout calling it "Woodstock"?  We could even have our own cheer
>
> Gimmee an EFF
>
> EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
>
> Gimmee an OOO
>
> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
> Gimmee an ARR
>
> ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
>
> Gimmee a  KAY
>
> KAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
>
> What's that spell?
>
> FORK!
>
> What's that spell?
>
> FORK!
>
> What's that spell?
>
> FORK!
>
>   Now all we need is a quarter of a million people screaming in unison.
>

LOL

Now seriously:

You should follow the discussion in -project. Someone (I forgot who
exactly) has made a personal commitment to within a month produce a
serviceable udev fork, at least a Proof of Concept. And IIRC, hwoarang is
going to 'test the waters' with Debian people.

So, this is not a pipe dream. It's happening, code will be produced, ...
and I bet some people will get offended ;-)

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3568 bytes --]

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

[Dale]

Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
>
> LOL
>
> Now seriously:
>
> You should follow the discussion in -project. Someone (I forgot who
> exactly) has made a personal commitment to within a month produce a
> serviceable udev fork, at least a Proof of Concept. And IIRC, hwoarang
> is going to 'test the waters' with Debian people.
>
> So, this is not a pipe dream. It's happening, code will be produced,
> ... and I bet some people will get offended ;-)
>
> Rgds,
> --
>

I'm sure some will be offended but it's no different when we heard about
the change that was coming.  A lot of us were not happy then either. 
Thing is, we now have two paths.  One that keeps the FHS like it was
with a separate /usr if we like and one where you have to have /usr on /
or use a initramfs thingy.  Now both can be happy while this idea gets
tested.  If the way udev is going flops, then they will come back.  If
udev works out for a lot of people, we will have two ways to do things. 

I think at some point, the new way will hit a road block and things will
break, maybe not for binary distros but for others.  When that time
comes, they will have to try to figure out a way to get things back to
the way they were. 

Time will tell tho.  I'm just glad to see the project getting started. 
Test both ways and see which one works out best. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

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

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
> 
> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!
> Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test
> run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long,
> I hope.

  BTW, this has hit Slashdot...
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2052203/gentoo-developers-fork-udev

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
We are apparently better off trying to avoid udev like the plague.
Linus Torvalds; 2012/10/03 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/349

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

[Michael Mol]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
>>
>> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!
>> Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test
>> run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long,
>> I hope.
>
>   BTW, this has hit Slashdot...
> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2052203/gentoo-developers-fork-udev

Be sure to read Richard Yao's response:
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3256499&cid=42006113

--
:wq

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

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:24:54PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
> >>
> >> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!
> >> Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test
> >> run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long,
> >> I hope.
> >
> >   BTW, this has hit Slashdot...
> > http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2052203/gentoo-developers-fork-udev
> 
> Be sure to read Richard Yao's response:
> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3256499&cid=42006113

  I understand that he's still getting the effort organized.  I am not a
C programmer, but if the effort needs any beta testers, I'm willing to
volunteer.  BTW, it looks like Lennart Poettering is more unpopular than
Steve Ballmer on Slashdot.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
We are apparently better off trying to avoid udev like the plague.
Linus Torvalds; 2012/10/03 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/349

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

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:24:54PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
>>>> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!
>>>> Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test
>>>> run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long,
>>>> I hope.
>>>   BTW, this has hit Slashdot...
>>> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2052203/gentoo-developers-fork-udev
>> Be sure to read Richard Yao's response:
>> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3256499&cid=42006113
>   I understand that he's still getting the effort organized.  I am not a
> C programmer, but if the effort needs any beta testers, I'm willing to
> volunteer.  BTW, it looks like Lennart Poettering is more unpopular than
> Steve Ballmer on Slashdot.
>

Thing I like about the fork, if people get fed up with udev, udev falls
flat on its face or something else causes udev to fail, we have a udev
already ready.  That statement may not be true for another couple months
or so but at least there is a Gentoo plan B. 

Also, I can get rid of dracut too.  ;-) 

Walter, I wonder how much your work helped this along?  If you had not
stepped up and did what you have done, then this fork may have never
happened.  You could have at least let others know there are people
looking for something else.  If so, thanks for that.  :-D

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

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

[Michael Mol]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:24:54PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
>> >>
>> >> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!
>> >> Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test
>> >> run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long,
>> >> I hope.
>> >
>> >   BTW, this has hit Slashdot...
>> > http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2052203/gentoo-developers-fork-udev
>>
>> Be sure to read Richard Yao's response:
>> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3256499&cid=42006113
>
>   I understand that he's still getting the effort organized.  I am not a
> C programmer, but if the effort needs any beta testers, I'm willing to
> volunteer.  BTW, it looks like Lennart Poettering is more unpopular than
> Steve Ballmer on Slashdot.

I don't remember if Richard is on the -user list or not. I've no doubt
he'd be happy to have your assistance; you put in a lot of work
getting mdev to work for your purposes. (Whatever happened with that,
anyway? Or am I getting the various walts in here mixed up?)

--
:wq

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

[Michael Mol]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 07:24:54PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 09:20:42PM -0600, Dale wrote
>>>>> Well, it appears we have someone willing to fork udev.  Yeppie !!
>>>>> Me, I'm looking forward to seeing how this works and giving it a test
>>>>> run when it gets ready.  Since it is a fork, shouldn't be to long,
>>>>> I hope.
>>>>   BTW, this has hit Slashdot...
>>>> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/16/2052203/gentoo-developers-fork-udev
>>> Be sure to read Richard Yao's response:
>>> http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3256499&cid=42006113
>>   I understand that he's still getting the effort organized.  I am not a
>> C programmer, but if the effort needs any beta testers, I'm willing to
>> volunteer.  BTW, it looks like Lennart Poettering is more unpopular than
>> Steve Ballmer on Slashdot.
>>
>
> Thing I like about the fork, if people get fed up with udev, udev falls
> flat on its face or something else causes udev to fail, we have a udev
> already ready.  That statement may not be true for another couple months
> or so but at least there is a Gentoo plan B.
>
> Also, I can get rid of dracut too.  ;-)
>
> Walter, I wonder how much your work helped this along?  If you had not
> stepped up and did what you have done, then this fork may have never
> happened.  You could have at least let others know there are people
> looking for something else.  If so, thanks for that.  :-D

I think Walter's work (and his dogged perseverance despite the
negative reactions I'd seen) played a pivotal role in having this play
out the way it did.

If he hadn't, I'm sure the systemd+udev thing would have gotten worked
out anyway, I'm not sure the solution would have come from within
Gentoo, and would not have come in the form of a fork, had Walter's
work not been so obvious a focal point.

Thanks, Walter.

*tips hat*

--
:wq

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

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:54:10PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
> 
> I don't remember if Richard is on the -user list or not. I've no doubt
> he'd be happy to have your assistance; you put in a lot of work
> getting mdev to work for your purposes. (Whatever happened with that,
> anyway? Or am I getting the various walts in here mixed up?)

  The Gentoo Wiki pages are at...
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB

  I don't think I can claim responsibility for Richard Yao's decision
(along with others) to fork udev.  I was one of the more visible
malcontents here on the user list, but there were other factors.

  For many people here, "the udev controversy" means either moving /usr
to /, or booting with initramd.  If that had been it, the fork might've
never materialized.  The current systemd-udev team managed to piss off a
lot of people.

  - people like me who didn't want to repartition their hard drives or
    go to initramd, just because Lennart declared separate /usr "broken"

  - people who had device drivers break, or at least hang for 30 or 60
    seconds at bootup, just because Lennart declared the old way of
    loading firmware "broken"

  - people who may not have been affected by the above, but were afraid
    of Lennart's stated desire to roll udev completely into systemd and
    thereby make systemd mandatory in linux

  - and for good measure, throw in people who had problems with Lennart's
    gratuitous sound daemon (pulseaudio) or gratutious network daemon
    (avahi) whose primary function seems to be to auto-config link-local
    addresses.  And let's not forget the brouhaha over Poettering's and
    Seiver's binary-syslog-with-undocumented-format idea
 http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/11/23/1733236/secure-syslog-replacement-proposed

  Lennart Poettering (and to a lesser extent Sievers) has pissed off a
lot of people (users, sysadmins, and developers).  The situation resembles
the Xfree86 ==> Xorg revolt.  Hopefully, the end result will be similar.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
We are apparently better off trying to avoid udev like the plague.
Linus Torvalds; 2012/10/03 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/349

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

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> Lennart Poettering (and to a lesser extent Sievers) has pissed off a
> lot of people (users, sysadmins, and developers). The situation
> resembles the Xfree86 ==> Xorg revolt. Hopefully, the end result will
> be similar. 


Speaking of.  I went to the xfree86 home page.  They say this on there:

"In short, XFree86 is the premier open source X11-based desktop
infrastructure."

Here is the funny part.  Everybody sit down.  This is from the changelog: 

"XFree86 4.8.99.1 (?? February 2009)"

And from the current release page, wait for it:

"Our current release is XFree86 version 4.8.0  and was released  on 15 December 2008"

When people left xfree86 behind, they forgot to change the home page.  That thing is at least a few years out of date.  Could someone turn out the lights please?  ROFL

Here's to a new udev.  < Dale drinks a sip of iced tea > 

Dale

:-)  :-)  

http://www.xfree86.org/

http://www.xfree86.org/cvs/changes.html

http://www.xfree86.org/releases/rel480.html

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

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

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1329 bytes --]

On Nov 17, 2012 12:16 PM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:54:10PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote
> >
> > I don't remember if Richard is on the -user list or not. I've no doubt
> > he'd be happy to have your assistance; you put in a lot of work
> > getting mdev to work for your purposes. (Whatever happened with that,
> > anyway? Or am I getting the various walts in here mixed up?)
>
>   The Gentoo Wiki pages are at...
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB
>
>   I don't think I can claim responsibility for Richard Yao's decision
> (along with others) to fork udev.  I was one of the more visible
> malcontents here on the user list, but there were other factors.
>

... no matter how much you tried to reduce your role, I'm forever indebted
to you for introducing me to an alternative to udev that's much more
suitable for a server environment.

To use MikeMol's phrase: I tip my hat to you.

That said, honestly even if systemd-udev dies a fiery death, I don't think
I'll leave mdev for Gentoo-udev; as with other SysAdmins, I prefer my
system an amalgamation of small, specialized components that I can
troubleshoot piecemeal, rather than having an überdaemon (mis)handling all
stuff for me...

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1715 bytes --]