[gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

Hi all,

Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs 
systemd thread.

I have an older server that I have been putting off this update, 
debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.

I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me 
find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.

The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.

Anyone?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs systemd
> thread.
>
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update, debating on
> whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me find
> any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>
> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>
> Anyone?

(I haven't done it myself, but...) I assume one would simply unmerge
sys-fs/udev and emerge sys-fs/eudev and then do any configuration file
changes necessary. virtual/udev covers the possibility of using either
package. Unless you're asking more about the configuration changes
themselves, in which case I have no idea.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-01 12:28 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.

Neglected to mention, it is still running 171-r10

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 01.08.2013 18:28, schrieb Tanstaafl:
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.

Well I also upgraded recently my system to udev 200.

I still have got though the old interface names. This turned out pretty 
easy to achieve.

Just boot your kernel with the following parameter:

net.ifnames=0

(tell LILO/GRUB to do so)

and you won't get any of those predictable network interface names AND 
running udev 200, it will still use your old established interface names.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 01.08.2013 19:16, schrieb Marc Stürmer:

> net.ifnames=0

Worked like a charm to me.

Forgot to mention the more thorough documentation though, so here it is:

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/PredictableNetworkInterfaceNames/

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade

You should read at last the latter from the official wiki.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Pavel Volkov]

On Thursday 01 August 2013 12:28:38 Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
> systemd thread.
> 
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
> 
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
> 
> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
> 
> Anyone?

Maybe just mask sys-fs/udev?
Then sys-fs/eudev will be pulled by virtual/udev, probably.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me 
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.

emerge -Ca udev
emerge -1a eudev

But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev now,
AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev because
eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
> systemd thread.
>
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>
> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>
> Anyone?
>
>

I switched when it was still fresh and it wasn't to bad from what I
recall.  Just emerge -C udev and emerge eudev.  I think I masked udev to
make sure it didn't get pulled in any more by something else but other
than that, it just worked. 

I would recommend going to boot runlevel and restarting udev after the
switch tho, just to be sure it restarts OK. 

Oh, the init script is still called udev not eudev. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-01 4:04 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> I switched when it was still fresh and it wasn't to bad from what I
> recall.  Just emerge -C udev and emerge eudev.  I think I masked udev to
> make sure it didn't get pulled in any more by something else but other
> than that, it just worked.
>
> I would recommend going to boot runlevel and restarting udev after the
> switch tho, just to be sure it restarts OK.
>
> Oh, the init script is still called udev not eudev.

Thanks Dale.

Hmmm... so, do I have to do any of the things recommended if updating to 
the new version of udev?

Ie:

Remove the udev-postmount init script

Make sure CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y is set in the kernel configuration

etc...

?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 01/08/13 19:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
> systemd thread.
>
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>
> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>
> Anyone?
>

First of all, eudev only has IUSE="rule-generator" that is backported 
from udev-171.
It's otherwise same in users point of view with sys-fs/udev, except 
sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and the code forwarding from 
upstream is not very reliable process.
Futhermore sys-fs/udev is not 'old' but it's the new one and will be the 
default for OpenRC for long as OpenRC is in Portage.
I don't want to bash anything or anybody but sys-fs/eudev as-is in the 
Portage is currently useless and a bit buggy.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-01 4:04 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I switched when it was still fresh and it wasn't to bad from what I
>> recall.  Just emerge -C udev and emerge eudev.  I think I masked udev to
>> make sure it didn't get pulled in any more by something else but other
>> than that, it just worked.
>>
>> I would recommend going to boot runlevel and restarting udev after the
>> switch tho, just to be sure it restarts OK.
>>
>> Oh, the init script is still called udev not eudev.
>
> Thanks Dale.
>
> Hmmm... so, do I have to do any of the things recommended if updating
> to the new version of udev?
>
> Ie:
>
> Remove the udev-postmount init script
>
> Make sure CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y is set in the kernel configuration
>
> etc...
>
> ?
>
>


When the version of udev came out that was said to require a init thingy
or /usr on /, that is when I switched to eudev.  I haven't used the
newer versions of udev.   I do have this in my kernel config tho:

root@fireball / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep -i CONFIG_DEVTMPFS
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
root@fireball / #

It may be best to search the archives for eudev and my email addy.  I
don't recall it being anything difficult.  The issues I did run into has
since been fixed.  As I posted earlier, I installed the very early
version. 

From my understanding now tho, it should be as easy as unmerge udev and
emerge eudev.  I'd look at the messages after it emerges tho, just in
case. 

Dale

:-)  :-)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 01/08/13 19:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
>> systemd thread.
>>
>> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
>> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>>
>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>>
>> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>
> First of all, eudev only has IUSE="rule-generator" that is backported
> from udev-171.
> It's otherwise same in users point of view with sys-fs/udev, except
> sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and the code forwarding from
> upstream is not very reliable process.
> Futhermore sys-fs/udev is not 'old' but it's the new one and will be
> the default for OpenRC for long as OpenRC is in Portage.
> I don't want to bash anything or anybody but sys-fs/eudev as-is in the
> Portage is currently useless and a bit buggy.
>
>

That's odd.  I been using eudev since like the second version that came
out and have had zero issues with it.  Ask anyone here, if it had a
problem, I'd be found it by now.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 00:49, Dale wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 01/08/13 19:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
>>> systemd thread.
>>>
>>> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
>>> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>>>
>>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>>>
>>> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>>>
>>> Anyone?
>>>
>>
>> First of all, eudev only has IUSE="rule-generator" that is backported
>> from udev-171.
>> It's otherwise same in users point of view with sys-fs/udev, except
>> sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and the code forwarding from
>> upstream is not very reliable process.
>> Futhermore sys-fs/udev is not 'old' but it's the new one and will be
>> the default for OpenRC for long as OpenRC is in Portage.
>> I don't want to bash anything or anybody but sys-fs/eudev as-is in the
>> Portage is currently useless and a bit buggy.
>>
>>
>
> That's odd.  I been using eudev since like the second version that came
> out and have had zero issues with it.  Ask anyone here, if it had a
> problem, I'd be found it by now.  lol

Then you haven't been following.  It's multiple issues per week, if not 
even day.
And like said, you don't gain anything by using sys-fs/eudev. The 
package is useless.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[William Kenworthy]

On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
> systemd thread.
> 
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
> 
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
> 
> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
> 
> Anyone?
> 

Something like

olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>=sys-fs/udev-180
...
olympus ~ #

olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
=virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
olympus ~ #

unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev

its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
... :)

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
> On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
>> systemd thread.
>>
>> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
>> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>>
>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>>
>> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>>
>> Anyone?
>>
>
> Something like
>
> olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>> =sys-fs/udev-180
> ...
> olympus ~ #
>
> olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
> sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
> =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
> olympus ~ #
>
> unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev
>
> its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
> machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
> ... :)

nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.  i've said 
it many times, and i'll say it again:

the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it

and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any 
features of their own

so why follow with unreliable fork, when there is the official package 
available with equal features?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[William Kenworthy]

On 02/08/13 07:42, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
...
> 
> so why follow with unreliable fork, when there is the official package
> available with equal features?
> 
> 

easy - it works and while I had machines running some of each it was
only the udev machines that needed continual maintenance in that area.
The latest and greatest isnt always the best.

I believe one of the goals of eudev was stability and the old way of
doing things which I want and get ... after removing gnome3 and
installing LXDE where I need a desktop (and LXDE is moving from gnome2
to QT, even better) I am getting less and less interested in creating
ongoing pain for myself with udev/systemd/gnome etc.

There may be bugs, but on my installations its been udev thats created
the hassles.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[William Kenworthy]

On 02/08/13 07:42, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
>>> systemd thread.
>>>
>>> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
>>> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>>>
>>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>>>
>>> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>>>
>>> Anyone?
>>>
>>
>> Something like
>>
>> olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>>> =sys-fs/udev-180
>> ...
>> olympus ~ #
>>
>> olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
>> sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
>> =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
>> olympus ~ #
>>
>> unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev
>>
>> its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
>> machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
>> ... :)
> 
> nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.  i've said
> it many times, and i'll say it again:
> 
> the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it
> 
> and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any
> features of their own
> 
> so why follow with unreliable fork, when there is the official package
> available with equal features?
> 
> 

and I just searched gentoo's bugzilla for "eudev" and there is a single
bug which is a stabilisation request.  Looking at the eudev github page
recent updates range from hours to days though some are months as one
would expect.

If its unreliable, where are the bugs? Try doing a search of gentoo's
bugzilla for udev instead of eudev ...


BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 03:19, William Kenworthy wrote:
> On 02/08/13 07:42, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 02:27, William Kenworthy wrote:
>>> On 02/08/13 00:28, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs
>>>> systemd thread.
>>>>
>>>> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update,
>>>> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
>>>>
>>>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>>>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>>>>
>>>> The eudev project page is sparse, to say the least.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Something like
>>>
>>> olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>>>> =sys-fs/udev-180
>>> ...
>>> olympus ~ #
>>>
>>> olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
>>> sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
>>> =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
>>> olympus ~ #
>>>
>>> unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev
>>>
>>> its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
>>> machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
>>> ... :)
>>
>> nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.  i've said
>> it many times, and i'll say it again:
>>
>> the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it
>>
>> and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any
>> features of their own
>>
>> so why follow with unreliable fork, when there is the official package
>> available with equal features?
>>
>>
>
> and I just searched gentoo's bugzilla for "eudev" and there is a single
> bug which is a stabilisation request.  Looking at the eudev github page
> recent updates range from hours to days though some are months as one
> would expect.
>
> If its unreliable, where are the bugs? Try doing a search of gentoo's
> bugzilla for udev instead of eudev ...

The bugs assigned to udev-bugs@ apply also to sys-fs/eudev in almost 
every case.
And the sys-fs/eudev specific bugs are in the github page at 'Tickets',
and some in bugzilla.
And yes, there are attempt at keeping up-to-date but everytime I (or we) 
review how it was done, bits are missing from here and there.

So still, eudev is the unnecessary experimental toy trying to catch up 
udev, and sys-fs/udev will be the default for long as sys-apps/openrc is 
the default.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.  i've said 
> it many times, and i'll say it again:
> 
> the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it
> 
> and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any 
> features of their own

  What are the "new features"?  What have Lennart/Kay broken recently?
First it was firmware loading in udev, which got them reamed out by
Linus.  Then it was (un)predictable network interface names.  Gentoo is
not Facebook http://www.geek.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-says-you-need-to-move-fast-and-break-things-922432/

> The key to the real innovation, says Zuckerberg, is to "move fast
> and break things."

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:28:38PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote
> Hi all,
> 
> Ok, rehashing this, but please don't turn it into another udev vs 
> systemd thread.
> 
> I have an older server that I have been putting off this update, 
> debating on whether to update to the regular udev, or to eudev.
> 
> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me 
> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.

  Step 1)
keyword sys-fs/eudev-1_beta2-r2

  Step 2)
ensure that "kmod" and "openrc" and "-modutils" USE flags are set (at
least for sys-fs/eudev).  "tools" flag needs to be set for sys-apps/kmod
(usually a system default)

  Step 3)
unmerge udev sys-apps/modutils
(You *MUST* specify "sys-apps/modutils" to avoid confusion with
"virtual/modutils")

  Step 4)
emerge eudev
(should pull in kmod)

  Step 5)
  The following message shows up in elog.  Do as it says...

> WARN: postinst
>
> You need to restart eudev as soon as possible to make the
> upgrade go into effect:
>         /etc/init.d/udev --nodeps restart

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 04:01, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.  i've said
>> it many times, and i'll say it again:
>>
>> the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it
>>
>> and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any
>> features of their own
>
>    What are the "new features"?  What have Lennart/Kay broken recently?
> First it was firmware loading in udev, which got them reamed out by
> Linus.  Then it was (un)predictable network interface names.  Gentoo is
> not Facebook http://www.geek.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-says-you-need-to-move-fast-and-break-things-922432/
>
>> The key to the real innovation, says Zuckerberg, is to "move fast
>> and break things."
>

Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in sys-fs/udev
Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a 
single valid bug filed about them.

Stop spreading FUD.

Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like 
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
> sys-fs/udev
> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
> single valid bug filed about them.
>
> Stop spreading FUD.
>
> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>
>

So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
issues, eudev has yet to cause any. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>> sys-fs/udev
>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>
>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>
>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>
> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.

Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't 
bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version 
of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what 
sys-fs/eudev has.
Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to 
sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so 
it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.

Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work 
and user confusion needs to stop.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>> sys-fs/udev
>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>
>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>
>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>
> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
> sys-fs/eudev has.
> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>
> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>
> - Samuli
>
>

So any bug that udev has eudev has too?  Then with that logic, udev is
just as unstable as eudev.  You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,
let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them. 
Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.

Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.  I CHOSE
not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether you like
that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you want
but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
use it. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[William Kenworthy]

On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>> sys-fs/udev
>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>
>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>
>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
> 
> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't
> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version
> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
> sys-fs/eudev has.
> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
> 
> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work
> and user confusion needs to stop.
> 
> - Samuli
> 

From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what
about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky,
unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even
though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to?  A
group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly
without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ...

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>
>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>>
>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>
>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
>>
>
> So any bug that udev has eudev has too?

Yes, because eudev is copying the upstream code over from udev.

> Then with that logic, udev is just as unstable as eudev.

Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional 
changes on top of udev changes.

> You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,

Which is true.

> let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.

I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between udev 
vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is 
IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and 
70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted.

> Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.

What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in 
sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator.

> I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether you like
> that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
> needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you want
> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
> them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
> use it.

I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of 
ignorance.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Graham Murray]

Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> writes:

> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
> single valid bug filed about them.
>
> Stop spreading FUD.

In what way are network interface names predictable? A new system
arrives on your desk, what is the name of the first (or only) Ethernet
interface?  Under the 'old' system, you know it will be 'eth0'[1]. With
the new scheme you do not know until the system is booted. The interface
name is (mostly) consistent once you know it, but it is not predictable.

[1] On a multi-interface system you may not have known which physical
port was eth0, but you knew that one of them was.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed,
>>>>> not a
>>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
>>>>> later on.
>>>>
>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>>>> spreading
>>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>>
>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>>
>>> - Samuli
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So any bug that udev has eudev has too?
>
> Yes, because eudev is copying the upstream code over from udev.
>
>> Then with that logic, udev is just as unstable as eudev.
>
> Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional
> changes on top of udev changes.
>
>> You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,
>
> Which is true.

Let's see them.   I'll help you:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=eudev&list_id=1920856


>
>> let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
>> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.
>
> I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between
> udev vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is
> IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and
> 70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted.

So still no links to any bug reports that are eudev specific huh?  See
above.


>
>> Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.
>
> What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in
> sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator.
>
>> I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether
>> you like
>> that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
>> needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you want
>> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
>> them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
>> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
>> use it.
>
> I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of
> ignorance.
>
> - Samuli
>
>


Here is some FUD for you.  Eudev just left beta.  From the eudev changelog.

*eudev-1.2 (01 Aug 2013)

  01 Aug 2013; Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> +eudev-1.2.ebuild,
  -eudev-1.2_beta.ebuild:
  version bump, remove beta


Just keep telling yourself this stuff and maybe one day you will
convince someone besides yourself.  In the meantime, others and myself
will continue to use eudev, whether you agree or not.  Keep the pity for
yourself OK.  I don't need it. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 08:28, Dale wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 06:14, Dale wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed,
>>>>>> not a
>>>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
>>>>>> later on.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>>>>> spreading
>>>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>>>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>>>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>>>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>>>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>>>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>>>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>>>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>>>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>>>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>>>
>>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>>>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>>>
>>>> - Samuli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So any bug that udev has eudev has too?
>>
>> Yes, because eudev is copying the upstream code over from udev.
>>
>>> Then with that logic, udev is just as unstable as eudev.
>>
>> Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional
>> changes on top of udev changes.
>>
>>> You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,
>>
>> Which is true.
>
> Let's see them.   I'll help you:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=eudev&list_id=1920856

Help yourself instead and use correct search parameters, like below...

>>
>>> let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
>>> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.
>>
>> I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between
>> udev vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is
>> IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and
>> 70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted.
>
> So still no links to any bug reports that are eudev specific huh?  See
> above.

Search bugzilla for udev-bugs@gentoo.org and 90% of them apply also to 
eudev.
Search bugzilla for eudev@gentoo.org and those all apply.
Search eudev github page Tickets and those all apply.

>>
>>> Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.
>>
>> What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in
>> sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator.
>>
>>> I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether
>>> you like
>>> that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
>>> needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you want
>>> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
>>> them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
>>> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
>>> use it.
>>
>> I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of
>> ignorance.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
>>
>
>
> Here is some FUD for you.  Eudev just left beta.  From the eudev changelog.
>
> *eudev-1.2 (01 Aug 2013)
>
>    01 Aug 2013; Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> +eudev-1.2.ebuild,
>    -eudev-1.2_beta.ebuild:
>    version bump, remove beta

And how did they get there?
By udev maintainers forcing them to upgrade to the new keymap hwdb which 
required version to be raised to up-to-par with udev-206.

Anyway, have fun with pointless udev fork which will never be the 
default. I don't care if you don't want the system up-to-par with 
production level system. :-)

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:14 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>
>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>>
>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>
>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
>>
>
> So any bug that udev has eudev has too?  Then with that logic, udev is
> just as unstable as eudev.  You claim eudev has a bug that udev doesn't,
> let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.
>
> Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.  I CHOSE
> not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether you like
> that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it serves my
> needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you want
> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
> them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for you to
> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who chooses to
> use it.

I join this statement!
Thanks!

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>
>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>>
>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't
>> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version
>> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>
>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work
>> and user confusion needs to stop.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
>
> From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what
> about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky,
> unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even
> though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to?  A
> group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly
> without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ...
>
> BillK
>

I second this statement!
The monolithic nature of the systemd maintainer is something that
should be banned (dependency, which requires dependency recursively
until you end up with no choice and medium quality components).
There was no reason to merge the code base of udev to any other code base.
There was no reason to kill backward compatibility.
Well, you all know the reason of why eudev was established.
I am very happy with eudev, had zero issues.

Thanks!
Alon Bar-Lev

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>>>
>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is spreading
>>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't
>>> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version
>>> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>>
>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work
>>> and user confusion needs to stop.
>>>
>>> - Samuli
>>>
>>
>>  From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what
>> about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky,
>> unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even
>> though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to?  A
>> group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly
>> without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me ...
>>
>> BillK
>>
>
> I second this statement!
> The monolithic nature of the systemd maintainer is something that
> should be banned (dependency, which requires dependency recursively
> until you end up with no choice and medium quality components).
> There was no reason to merge the code base of udev to any other code base.
> There was no reason to kill backward compatibility.

FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be 
built standalone and ran standalone.
And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove 
support for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both 
sys-apps/systemd and sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without issues.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 02/08/13 09:06, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 6:17 AM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/08/13 11:01, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default in
>>>>>> sys-fs/udev
>>>>>> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed, not a
>>>>>> single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later
>>>>>> on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>>>>> spreading
>>>>> FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was going to cause
>>>>> issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it doesn't
>>>> bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from old version
>>>> of udev, as well as adds confusing to users.
>>>> And no, sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>>>> sys-fs/eudev has.
>>>> Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to udev-bugs@g.o apply also to
>>>> sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in their github ticketing system.
>>>> And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so
>>>> it doesn't fall too much behind, which adds double work unnecessarily.
>>>> They don't keep it up-to-date on their own without prodding.
>>>>
>>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double work
>>>> and user confusion needs to stop.
>>>>
>>>> - Samuli
>>>>
>>>
>>>  From my point of view, its udev/systemd that should be punted - what
>>> about user choice? - Ive decided I no longer want to buy into the flaky,
>>> unusable systems gnome3 and udev/systemd integration caused me even
>>> though I didn't have systemd installed, so why should I be forced to?  A
>>> group have come up with a way to keep my systems running properly
>>> without those packages and its working better than udev ever has for me
>>> ...
>>>
>>> BillK
>>>
>>
>> I second this statement!
>> The monolithic nature of the systemd maintainer is something that
>> should be banned (dependency, which requires dependency recursively
>> until you end up with no choice and medium quality components).
>> There was no reason to merge the code base of udev to any other code base.
>> There was no reason to kill backward compatibility.
>
>
> FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be
> built standalone and ran standalone.
> And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove support
> for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both sys-apps/systemd and
> sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without issues.
>

No FUD... it can be currently with some patches, this is against
agenda of upstream... but you are right it *CAN* be done... with
effort and modifications.

In future, even that "support" may be removed because of upstream agenda.

I appreciate the effort of creating standalone udev project, I do not
care if this is udev fork or mdev or anything else that provide
userspace device management, that is free of commercial agenda and the
dependency lock-in.

As long as there is alternative to systemd upstream I will endorse it
and use it to help the relevant upstream to improve his software.

Regards,
Alon

[gentoo-user] Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

[Steven J. Long]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Futhermore predictable network interface names work as designed,

Unfortunately the "design" is crap.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

[Steven J. Long]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be 
> built standalone and ran standalone.

Sorry I'm going to call "bullshit" on this one.

You know damn well "upstream" moved udev into systemd, promising everyone it would
be possible to continue to build just udev, and then changed that with weasel words
into "build everything and extract udev".

So you cannot "build udev standalone" any more, as you state. You have to build systemd
and then extract the udev stuff you actually want.

You don't like other projects bundling dependencies, but somehow it's ok for systemd.
Utter tripe.

> And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove 
> support for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both 
> sys-apps/systemd and sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without issues.

Huh? WTF would be the point, when systemd bundles udev?

We already have loads of people on the forums having issues with conflicts between
sys-apps/systemd and sys-fs/udev, so again your point is total nonsense.

None of which detracts from for your sterling work on Gentoo, and the support you provide
to users on various media.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-01 5:41 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> When the version of udev came out that was said to require a init thingy
> or /usr on /, that is when I switched to eudev.  I haven't used the
> newer versions of udev.   I do have this in my kernel config tho:
>
> root@fireball / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep -i CONFIG_DEVTMPFS
> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
> root@fireball / #

Thanks Dale... looks easy enough...

But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that is 
the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit hole 
Sunday...

Thanks again to all who responded...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Something like
>
> olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>> =sys-fs/udev-180
> ...
> olympus ~ #
>
> olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
> sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
> =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
> olympus ~ #
>
> unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev
>
> its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
> machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
> ... :)

Thanks Bill...

Two questions...

1. Why =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64 instead of virtual/udev ~amd64 ?

and

2. Did you remove the udev-postmount init script?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 08:28, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> Except it isn't because as already explained, eudev makes additional
>>> changes on top of udev changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is true.
>>
>> Let's see them.   I'll help you:
>>
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=eudev&list_id=1920856
>
> Help yourself instead and use correct search parameters, like below...
>
>>>
>>>> let's see them.  Based on your posts, there should be plenty of them.
>>>> Funny I haven't ran into any of them yet tho.
>>>
>>> I'm not suprised, because the current status is so similar between
>>> udev vs. eudev. Only regression that's known currently is
>>> IUSE="+rule-generator" that doesn't do it's job correctly and
>>> 70-persistent-net.rules it is generating can't be trusted.
>>
>> So still no links to any bug reports that are eudev specific huh?  See
>> above.
>
> Search bugzilla for udev-bugs@gentoo.org and 90% of them apply also to
> eudev.
> Search bugzilla for eudev@gentoo.org and those all apply.
> Search eudev github page Tickets and those all apply.

You mean like this:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=eudev%40gentoo.org&list_id=1921198


Results:

"Zarro Boogs found."

No open bugs!!  When I look for open bugs for a package, I look for the
package name itself.  That has worked for ages and my search actually
did turn up one stable request where yours didn't. 

>
>>>
>>>> Here is the deal OK.  Udev went in a direction I do NOT like.
>>>
>>> What direction is that? Everything same is in sys-fs/udev than is in
>>> sys-fs/eudev, except the buggy rule-generator.
>>>
>>>> I CHOSE not to use it and plan to not use it.  I PREFER eudev whether
>>>> you like
>>>> that decision or not.  I also plan to use eudev as long as it
>>>> serves my
>>>> needs as I suspect others will as well.  You can preach FUD all you
>>>> want
>>>> but it works here for me and as others have posted, it works fine for
>>>> them.  The OP asked for assistance in switching to eudev not for
>>>> you to
>>>> second guess their choice or to second guess anyone else who
>>>> chooses to
>>>> use it.
>>>
>>> I feel pity for you, too bad the eudev in tree causes such level of
>>> ignorance.
>>>
>>> - Samuli
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here is some FUD for you.  Eudev just left beta.  From the eudev
>> changelog.
>>
>> *eudev-1.2 (01 Aug 2013)
>>
>>    01 Aug 2013; Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> +eudev-1.2.ebuild,
>>    -eudev-1.2_beta.ebuild:
>>    version bump, remove beta
>
> And how did they get there?
> By udev maintainers forcing them to upgrade to the new keymap hwdb
> which required version to be raised to up-to-par with udev-206.
>
> Anyway, have fun with pointless udev fork which will never be the
> default. I don't care if you don't want the system up-to-par with
> production level system. :-)
>
> - Samuli
>
>

They got there by fixing issues and it reaching stable.  That is how
they got there.  You don't know that and you are telling others what to
use for their system?  Really?  Who exactly do you think you are
anyway?  Did someone appoint you Gentoo King or something?  Here is
where we will always differ, I decide on my machine what I use, NOT
YOU.  If I don't like a piece of software and CHOSE to use something
else, you don't get a say in the matter.  Got it?  Eudev forked from
udev, get over it. 

I'm not in the mood for someone shoving something down my throat.  That
goes for Lennart and you too.  I use eudev, and I plan to do so as long
as it serves my needs.  The only one spreading FUD here is you. 

Since you are way off the mark of what the OP asked for, why not go
write a blog or something.  Maybe go write a blog for Lennart instead of
trying to push your agenda here.  The OP came here for help to switch to
eudev not to hear you shove your agenda.  He/she already made their
choice as have others. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alan McKinnon]

On 02/08/2013 14:10, Dale wrote:
> Here is
> where we will always differ, I decide on my machine what I use, NOT
> YOU.



Hey Dale,

Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back :-)


[[ hugz and peace ]]

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-01 5:41 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When the version of udev came out that was said to require a init thingy
>> or /usr on /, that is when I switched to eudev.  I haven't used the
>> newer versions of udev.   I do have this in my kernel config tho:
>>
>> root@fireball / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep -i CONFIG_DEVTMPFS
>> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
>> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y
>> root@fireball / #
>
> Thanks Dale... looks easy enough...
>
> But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
> is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
> hole Sunday...
>
> Thanks again to all who responded...
>
>

This is what I have for that from rc-update show:

udev-postmount |      default 

If you have something that says different, can you post a link?  I'd
like to see that.  I don't recall removing any script but again, I was a
early switcher.

Please excuse the agenda posts by Samuli.  If you chose eudev, like me
and plenty of others, use eudev.  It's your system and you know what you
need to use. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 02/08/2013 14:10, Dale wrote:
>> Here is
>> where we will always differ, I decide on my machine what I use, NOT
>> YOU.
>
>
> Hey Dale,
>
> Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back :-)
>
>
> [[ hugz and peace ]]
>


This guy is about to enter Lennart territory.  I see others have set him
straight on some issues too.  Instead of dealing with him, we need to be
assisting the OP. 

I'm ill, been ill for weeks and stepping into udev/systemd areas is
well, unwise.  ;-)   This was hashed ages ago and it is the reason eudev
was forked.  Enough said.

Dale 

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
>> is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
>> hole Sunday...

> This is what I have for that from rc-update show:
>
> udev-postmount |      default

Yes, that is what I still have (because I haven't upgraded udev yet)...

I was just making sure that the instructions for upgrading udev (to 
remove this script) didn't apply to eudev.

> If you have something that says different, can you post a link?  I'd
> like to see that.  I don't recall removing any script but again, I was a
> early switcher.
>
> Please excuse the agenda posts by Samuli.  If you chose eudev, like me
> and plenty of others, use eudev.  It's your system and you know what you
> need to use.

No worries... he is why I asked not to use my question to start another 
flamewar, although I guess I should have specified udev <> systemd AND 
udev <> eudev...

;)

Thanks again, looking forward to getting this behind me. Its been a long 
time since I've had zero results when doing an emerge -pvuDN world after 
eix-syncing...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
>>> is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
>>> hole Sunday...
>
>> This is what I have for that from rc-update show:
>>
>> udev-postmount |      default
>
> Yes, that is what I still have (because I haven't upgraded udev yet)...
>
> I was just making sure that the instructions for upgrading udev (to
> remove this script) didn't apply to eudev.
>
>> If you have something that says different, can you post a link?  I'd
>> like to see that.  I don't recall removing any script but again, I was a
>> early switcher.
>>
>> Please excuse the agenda posts by Samuli.  If you chose eudev, like me
>> and plenty of others, use eudev.  It's your system and you know what you
>> need to use.
>
> No worries... he is why I asked not to use my question to start
> another flamewar, although I guess I should have specified udev <>
> systemd AND udev <> eudev...
>
> ;)
>
> Thanks again, looking forward to getting this behind me. Its been a
> long time since I've had zero results when doing an emerge -pvuDN
> world after eix-syncing...
>
>


As always, have a sysrescue stick/CD/DVD handy.  If nothing else, it
warns the evil stuff to stay away.  ;-)  I usually keep a mini sledge
hammer close by but . . . .

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[William Kenworthy]

On 02/08/13 19:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> Something like
>>
>> olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>>> =sys-fs/udev-180
>> ...
>> olympus ~ #
>>
>> olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
>> sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
>> =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
>> olympus ~ #
>>
>> unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev
>>
>> its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
>> machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
>> ... :)
> 
> Thanks Bill...
> 
> Two questions...
> 
> 1. Why =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64 instead of virtual/udev ~amd64 ?
> 
> and
> 
> 2. Did you remove the udev-postmount init script?
> 

1. I'm lazy - was probably a cut n paste :)

2. I am interested in this one as the message is ambiguous - I have
removed it on some machines.


BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.
> i've said it many times, and i'll say it again:
> 
> the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it
> 
> and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any 
> features of their own

  udev, the red-headed stepchild of systemd, hasn't exactly had a lot of
new features, either.  The following "FUD" brought to you by
"Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc." http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside
> of systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add
> new features to that or anything.
> 
> OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd
> however, and that's our primary focus.
> 
> And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform
> integration into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for
> non-systemd systems.

  Straight from the horse's mouth, udev won't be getting new features
and the systemd maintainers' main target is integration into systemd.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like 
> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.

  You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
systemd rammed down our throats...

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> (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.)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 10:03:58AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be 
> built standalone and ran standalone.

  For how long can it be built standalone?  The following "FUD" brought
to you courtesy of Kay Sievers...  http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html

> We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never
> told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands.
> 
> We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation
> always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd.
> 
> I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the
> announcement, it just wasn't written there.

  That's not some paranoid conspiracy theorist, that's the systemd
developer speaking.

> And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove
> support for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both
> sys-apps/systemd and sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without
> issues.

  What do you mean by eudev supporting systemd?  udev is an integrated
part of the systemd tarball (that can operate standalone... for now).
eudev isn't.  I'm old enough to remember IBM's OS/2 attempting to
support Windows 3.1 and how that got broken by minor binary changes in
Windows 3.11.  eudev would be in a similar situation, attempting to
support a hostile systemd "side-stream".

  I think that the best way to end these arguments is a peaceful divorce
with systemd and eudev each going their own way.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 08/03/2013 10:56 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>
>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
> systemd rammed down our throats...
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
>

I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev 
will not be dropped.

>> (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.)
>


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-04 9:02 AM, Anthony G. Basile <basile@opensource.dyc.edu> wrote:
> On 08/03/2013 10:56 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>>
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>
>>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
>> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
>> systemd rammed down our throats...
>>
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
> will not be dropped.

Thanks Anthony... that was the only other real concern I had (wondering 
if I was juts postponing the inevitable)...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
> will not be dropped.
>

I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-04 11:56 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>
>> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
>> will not be dropped.
>>
>
> I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
> beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
> say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!

And of course I hit send too early, before adding something similar... :)

Thanks Anthony, your efforts are truly appreciated!

Charles

[gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

[Tanstaafl]

Hi all,

Ok, I didn't get home yesterday like I thought I would, and since I have 
found that, for myself, waiting for a saturday morning (so I have a full 
weekend to recover if anything goes south) to do anything that has even 
a remote possibility of trashing a system always seems to result in 
everything working smoothly. So, am going to wait until next weekend to 
do this.

I have two last question...

1. When I unmerge 'everything udev', what exactly does that consist
    of *in addition to* "sys-fs/udev"?

and

2. Would anyone who is using eudev please post udev/eudev related
    contents of both package.mask and package.keywords?

The reason I ask for #2 is, I've been playing with pretending emerging 
after modifying package.keywords and .mask, and am confused (see the 
following errors):

With *only* "sys-fs/eudev ~amd64" in package.keywords and *nothing* in 
package.mask, I get the following (as expected because I must first 
unmerge "sys-fs/udev" before emerging eudev):

~ emerge -pvuDN eudev

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N    ~] sys-fs/eudev-1.2  USE="modutils openrc rule-generator 
-doc -gudev -hwdb -introspection -keymap -kmod (-selinux) -static-libs 
{-test}" 1,639 kB
[ebuild     U  ] virtual/udev-200 [171] USE="-gudev -hwdb -introspection 
-keymap -kmod* (-selinux) -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26  5 kB
[blocks B      ] sys-fs/udev ("sys-fs/udev" is blocking sys-fs/eudev-1.2)
[blocks B      ] <sys-fs/udev-186 ("<sys-fs/udev-186" is blocking 
sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26)

Total: 3 packages (1 upgrade, 2 new), Size of downloads: 1,644 kB
Conflict: 2 blocks (2 unsatisfied)

Also, I get the exact same thing with either *nothing* (udev/eudev 
related) or with "=sys-fs/udev-180" (as suggested by William Kenworthy) 
in package.mask.

BUT...

If I add *any* of the following to package.keywords:

sys-fs/udev-init-scripts ~amd64 (don't remember why I had this there),
"=virtual/udev-206 ~amd64" or "virtual/udev ~amd64" (both? suggested by 
William) - I get the following error:

~ emerge -pvuDN eudev

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!

emerge: there are no ebuilds built with USE flags to satisfy 
">=sys-fs/eudev-1.2[keymap,gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,selinux?,static-libs?]".
!!! One of the following packages is required to complete your request:
- sys-fs/eudev-1.2::gentoo (Change USE: +keymap, this change violates 
use flag constraints defined by sys-fs/eudev-1.2: 'keymap? ( hwdb )')
(dependency required by "virtual/udev-206" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "sys-fs/eudev-1.2[openrc]" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "eudev" [argument])

So, the questions are:

Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in 
package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need in 
package.keywords?

Thanks again to all...

Incidentally, I'm writing this experience up and will post to the list 
(with permission to anyone to add to the wiki or anywhere else) once I'm 
done...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 517 bytes --]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:39:04 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in 
> package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need
> in package.keywords?

No and nothing. Howevr, you do need to make sure that your USE flag
settings for sys-fs/eudev match those for virtual/udev, otherwise
sys-eudev won't satisfy its requirements.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Hospitality:  making your guests feel like they're at home, even if you
wish they were.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> <<< SNIP >>>
> 2. Would anyone who is using eudev please post udev/eudev related
>    contents of both package.mask and package.keywords?
>
> The reason I ask for #2 is, I've been playing with pretending emerging
> after modifying package.keywords and .mask, and am confused (see the
> following errors):
>
> With *only* "sys-fs/eudev ~amd64" in package.keywords and *nothing* in
> package.mask, I get the following (as expected because I must first
> unmerge "sys-fs/udev" before emerging eudev):
> <<< SNIP >>>
> So, the questions are:
>
> Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in
> package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need
> in package.keywords?
>
> Thanks again to all...
>
> Incidentally, I'm writing this experience up and will post to the list
> (with permission to anyone to add to the wiki or anywhere else) once
> I'm done...
>
>


I have this in package.keywords

sys-fs/eudev

I did mask the -9999 version tho since I didn't want to get that brave
in the future.  I'm not sure if you have to keyword or unmask anything
now that it is not beta and been tested more. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:59:36PM -0500, Dale wrote

> I have this in package.keywords
> 
> sys-fs/eudev
> 
> I did mask the -9999 version tho since I didn't want to get that brave
> in the future.  I'm not sure if you have to keyword or unmask anything
> now that it is not beta and been tested more. 

  You can do both in one step, with the following line in package.keywords

<sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64

Replace "amd64" as necessary, if you're not running 64-bit Gentoo on an
AMD or Intel box.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:
> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>
>> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
>> will not be dropped.
>>
>
> I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
> beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
> say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

I am the current lead.  You may follow the activity here [1].

[1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 04/08/13 05:56, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>
>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
> systemd rammed down our throats...
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
>
>> (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.)
>

That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and 
you don't need eudev for that.
If udev upstream makes it impossible to build, or run it standalone then 
we need to patch or fork it -- but that's far from now.
In any case there will always be sys-fs/udev and it will never require 
sys-apps/systemd.
Futhermore sys-fs/udev will be the default for long as sys-apps/openrc 
is the default.

I mean, why the heck fork something too early when upstream still 
supports udev on non-systemd init systems?!

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Marc Stürmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 287 bytes --]

Why is was forked you ask? Because of the predictable Name stuff and some
People disliked the attitude of the udev programmer which was "either my
way or the high way." aside choice is always Good to have so in the end IT
was bound to happen sooner or later and is a Good thing to have.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 318 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/08/13 13:27, Marc Stürmer wrote:
> Why is was forked you ask? Because of the predictable Name stuff and
> some People disliked the attitude of the udev programmer which was
> "either my way or the high way." aside choice is always Good to have so
> in the end IT was bound to happen sooner or later and is a Good thing to
> have.
>

nope, the forking happened before predictable network interface names.
and forking udev was never the smart choice here, but it would be rather 
easy to port the old rule generator as a standalone udev helper and make 
it use free names like lan0, wireless0.
as in, you don't change whole car if your tire blows out

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:12:02AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote

> I am the current lead.  You may follow the activity here [1].
> 
> [1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master

  Thank you very much for your work on eudev, from an end-user who
benefits from your work.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 08/05/2013 06:19 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 04/08/13 05:56, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>>
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>
>>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
>> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
>> systemd rammed down our throats...
>>
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
>>
>>
>>> (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.)
>>
>
> That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
> Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and
> you don't need eudev for that.

For now.  And you get a ton of bloat.  I removed over 300 unused 
functions.  Furthermore, there is a problem with iface renaming which 
Ian solved and legacy features are not there.  We will continue to 
support a bootable system with separate /usr without need for an intramfs.

But most importantly, you have a different upstream with a different 
attitude towards the users.  Even if the codebase were identical, this 
makes all the difference to those who want a system the way they want 
and not the way systemd upstream wants.  Your arguments have been 
ineffective at convincing people because you dismiss this critical point.


> If udev upstream makes it impossible to build, or run it standalone then
> we need to patch or fork it -- but that's far from now.
> In any case there will always be sys-fs/udev and it will never require
> sys-apps/systemd.
> Futhermore sys-fs/udev will be the default for long as sys-apps/openrc
> is the default.
>
> I mean, why the heck fork something too early when upstream still
> supports udev on non-systemd init systems?!
>
> - Samuli


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-05 10:10 AM, Anthony G. Basile <basile@opensource.dyc.edu> wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 06:19 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
>> Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and
>> you don't need eudev for that.

> For now.

And this is ultimately my primary concern. After reading the huge 
threads surrounding this debacle, I wouldn't trust Lennart (or the other 
systemd devs) on any promise to not remove this ability at a later date.

> And you get a ton of bloat.

And this is the second concern. Both of these are why I decided to go 
with eudev. I looked at mdev, but it looked a lot more complicated to 
get right than eudev (correct me if I'm wrong someone).

Thanks again Anthony for your work maintaining eudev for 'the rest of 
us'... :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

Going back and re-reading finds this answer to my other last question - 
also from you Neil (so thanks again!)...

But I'm curious...

On 2013-08-01 2:43 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> >I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>> >find any explicit instructions for*how*  to switch from udev to eudev.
> emerge -Ca udev
> emerge -1a eudev
>
> But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev now,
> AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev because
> eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).

Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to 
regular udev? This is the only 'concern' that I have right now, and 
this is the first comment I've seen from anyone about anything like this...

Thanks again,

Charles

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 745 bytes --]

On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
> > now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
> > because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).  
> 
> Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to 
> regular udev? 

I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher
udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been
updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this
happened regularly.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

PC DOS Error #01: Windows loading, come back tomorrow

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-05 4:18 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>>> But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
>>> now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
>>> because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).
>>
>> Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to
>> regular udev?
>
> I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
> making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher
> udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been
> updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this
> happened regularly.

Agreed... Anthony, can you comment on the likelihood of this happening 
in the future? An occasional temporary issue wouldn't trouble me, as I 
already wait at least a few days before updating anything critical, and 
it isn't like this kind of thing hasn't happened for regular udev...

Thanks for the reply Neil...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 01:19:34PM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.

  Your view and mine don't matter.  Upstream's view matters.  That's how
we end up with fiascos like GNOME and Microsoft's Metro interface.

> Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and 
> you don't need eudev for that.

  Kay Sievers, *THE LEAD DEVELOPER* specifically says in
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html

> We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never
> told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands

I.e. no promise of being able to build standalone.

> If udev upstream makes it impossible to build, or run it standalone
> then we need to patch or fork it -- but that's far from now.

[...deletia...]

> I mean, why the heck fork something too early when upstream still 
> supports udev on non-systemd init systems?!

  Let's say that that it happens 2 years from now, after udev has been
getting ever more tightly integrated into systemd.  At that point, it'll
be way too late.  The udev source will have all sorts of hooks into
systemd, at least at build-time.  Creating a stand-alone build in a few
weeks would be painful.  Another option is to dig up 2-year-old source
code for the last stand-alone version of udev and update it in a rush.
The old version would depend on libs no-longer in the tree, and other
apps would depend on a newer udev.  You yourself, pointed out in
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org/msg139485.html

> By udev maintainers forcing them to upgrade to the new keymap hwdb
> which required version to be raised to up-to-par with udev-206.

  Imagine 2 years of such updates to catch up with in a few weeks.  It's
too late to start building the fire-escapes when the fire-alarm goes
off.  Similarly, if we want a viable alternative udev, that means having
it (eudev) maintained and up-to-date and ready at all times.  I'm sorry
that it has come to this, but the current udev maintainers have made it
clear which way they want to go, and it's not the way that I and a lot
of other people want to go.  Don't blame us for getting out while the
getting out is still good.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:18:38PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> 
> > > But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
> > > now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
> > > because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).  
> > 
> > Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to 
> > regular udev? 
> 
> I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
> making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher
> udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been
> updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this
> happened regularly.

  I ran into this.  Here is what I think happened...

- I specified "sys-fs/eudev-1.2-r1-beta ~amd64" (or something similar)
  in my /etc/portage/package.keywords file
- I ran "emerge --sync".  On that particular day, it removed the beta
  version ebuild, and replaced it with eudev-1.2.ebuild
- "emerge --changed-use --deep --update @world" could no longer find an
  unmasked version of sys-fs/eudev that satisfied virtual/udev.  So it
  fell back to a version of sys-fs/udev
- My workaround, *UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EUDEV HITS STABLE AMD64*, is...
<sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64
  in my /etc/portage/package.keywords file.

  This specifies to accept the highest ebuild number that is smaller
than 9999 (the "bleeding edge" version).

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:10:45AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote

> For now.  And you get a ton of bloat.  I removed over 300 unused 
> functions.

  Wonderful.  It reminds me of...  http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26979.html

> Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
> but when there is nothing left to take away.

> Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> French writer (1900 - 1944)

  That is a saying that should be taken to heart by more programmers,
both in the linux and Microsoft worlds.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Daniel Campbell]

On 08/05/2013 05:12 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:
>> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>>
>>> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
>>> will not be dropped.
>>>
>>
>> I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
>> beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
>> say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
> 
> I am the current lead.  You may follow the activity here [1].
> 
> [1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master
> 
If I knew more about detecting hardware and knew more C, I'd gladly join
you in eudev development. As a user all I can offer is a hearty "thanks"
and a promise to report any bugs that I find. Your work is appreciated!

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1576 bytes --]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 21:10:27 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> > I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
> > making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a
> > higher udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev
> > has been updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a
> > concern if this happened regularly.  
> 
>   I ran into this.  Here is what I think happened...
> 
> - I specified "sys-fs/eudev-1.2-r1-beta ~amd64" (or something similar)
>   in my /etc/portage/package.keywords file
> - I ran "emerge --sync".  On that particular day, it removed the beta
>   version ebuild, and replaced it with eudev-1.2.ebuild
> - "emerge --changed-use --deep --update @world" could no longer find an
>   unmasked version of sys-fs/eudev that satisfied virtual/udev.  So it
>   fell back to a version of sys-fs/udev
> - My workaround, *UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EUDEV HITS STABLE AMD64*, is...
> <sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64
>   in my /etc/portage/package.keywords file.
> 
>   This specifies to accept the highest ebuild number that is smaller
> than 9999 (the "bleeding edge" version).

nothing that complicated, I have nothing in package.{un,}mask for eudev.
Something was pulling in virtual/udev-206, which no eudev releases at the
time could satisfy (except possibly the 9999 version but those are masked
by default) so portage needed to uinstall eudev and install udev to fulfil
the dependency.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Sisko:"I won't be condescending to you this episode, Dr. Bashir."

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 08/06/2013 07:20 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 05:12 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
>>>> will not be dropped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
>>> beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
>>> say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-)
>>>
>>
>> I am the current lead.  You may follow the activity here [1].
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master
>>
> If I knew more about detecting hardware and knew more C, I'd gladly join
> you in eudev development. As a user all I can offer is a hearty "thanks"
> and a promise to report any bugs that I find. Your work is appreciated!
>

Please test and report any problems.  Isolate the problems as much as 
possible (by commenting code or whatever) and this is 1/2 the battle.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-01 2:43 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Aug 2013 12:28:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to eudev.
>
> emerge -Ca udev
> emerge -1a eudev

Two last questions (first one never got answered, and I'm doing this in 
the morning)...

Do I not have to

emerge -Ca virtual/udev

too?

Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead and 
reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?

Thanks again to all...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 07:12:50 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> >> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
> >> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to
> >> eudev.  
> >
> > emerge -Ca udev
> > emerge -1a eudev  
> 
> Two last questions (first one never got answered, and I'm doing this in 
> the morning)...
> 
> Do I not have to
> 
> emerge -Ca virtual/udev
> 
> too?

No, the virtual is always needed, eudev satisfies it. but you do need to
make sure your USE settings for eudev and virtual/udev match.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

CPU: (n.) acronym for Central Purging Unit. A device which discards or
distorts data sent to it, sometimes returning more data and sometimes
merely over-heating.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-09 8:24 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 07:12:50 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>>>> I've googled until my fingers are blue, but cannot for the life of me
>>>> find any explicit instructions for *how* to switch from udev to
>>>> eudev.
>>>
>>> emerge -Ca udev
>>> emerge -1a eudev
>>
>> Two last questions (first one never got answered, and I'm doing this in
>> the morning)...
>>
>> Do I not have to
>>
>> emerge -Ca virtual/udev
>>
>> too?
>
> No, the virtual is always needed, eudev satisfies it. but you do need to
> make sure your USE settings for eudev and virtual/udev match.

Ok... so, as long as I don't have anything for either of them in 
package.use, I'm ok?

Or - *should* I have anything for them in package.use? The only thing I 
have in there that I think is in any way related to udev (based on 
memory about an issue with it that was related to udev when doing an 
update a while back) is:

sys-apps/kmod tools

But nothing for either sys-fs/udev or virtual/udev...

Thanks Neil

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:45:47 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > No, the virtual is always needed, eudev satisfies it. but you do need
> > to make sure your USE settings for eudev and virtual/udev match.  
> 
> Ok... so, as long as I don't have anything for either of them in 
> package.use, I'm ok?
> 
> Or - *should* I have anything for them in package.use? The only thing I 
> have in there that I think is in any way related to udev (based on 
> memory about an issue with it that was related to udev when doing an 
> update a while back) is:

You should be OK, but portage will let you know if a needed flag is not
set. However, if you have a mismatch between the two packages, the virtual
may try to pull in udev instead. This happened to me once and it took a
while to work out that the issue was caused by USE flags.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

WinErr 008: Broken window - Watch out for glass fragments

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 05/08/13 23:18, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>>> But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
>>> now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
>>> because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).
>>
>> Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to
>> regular udev?
>
> I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
> making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher
> udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been
> updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this
> happened regularly.

I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight 
incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't 
have to wait for the alternative providers.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-10 2:57 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 05/08/13 23:18, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>> But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev
>>>> now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev
>>>> because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64).
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to
>>> regular udev?
>>
>> I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by
>> making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher
>> udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been
>> updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this
>> happened regularly.
>
> I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight
> incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't
> have to wait for the alternative providers.

And thanks for the heads up Samuli.

I always emerge -pvuDN world and look very carefully at the results, and 
I also wait at least 2 or 3 days before installing any system critical 
updates (has saved me headaches more than once).

Ok, here goes... ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - Reboot Necessary?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead and
> reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?

Never got a response to this...

I'd prefer to not reboot if I don't have to, but it isn't *that* big a 
deal if it is 'recommended'...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - Reboot Necessary?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-10 10:25 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>> Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead and
>> reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?
>
> Never got a response to this...
>
> I'd prefer to not reboot if I don't have to, but it isn't *that* big a
> deal if it is 'recommended'...

Two other related questions...

1. Would it be correct to say that if you don't get an error when 
restarting udev, you *shouldn't* (I know there are never any guarantees) 
get an error when rebooting?

and

2. What happens if I

/etc/init.d/udev restart

and there is an error of some kind?

Will it cause my mail server to come crashing down? Or will it keep 
running until I can determine the error and fix it?

Keep in mind - this is a server, and just runs 
postfix/dovecot/apache/mysql...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

Hmmm...

Do I need (I don't think so) the kmod USE flag set for eudev and 
virtual/udev?

I have kernel modules disabled on this system.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev - Reboot Necessary?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1514 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:33:48 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > On 2013-08-09 7:12 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:  
> >> Last - is simply restarting udev good enough, or should I go ahead
> >> and reboot anyway before continuing with other updates?  

Restarting worked for me on a server. On my laptop I switched over at the
same tome as a kernel update, so I had to reboot anyway.

> > Never got a response to this...
> >
> > I'd prefer to not reboot if I don't have to, but it isn't *that* big a
> > deal if it is 'recommended'...  
> 
> Two other related questions...
> 
> 1. Would it be correct to say that if you don't get an error when 
> restarting udev, you *shouldn't* (I know there are never any
> guarantees) get an error when rebooting?

That sounds reasonable. I find checkrestart to be useful in these
situations. If it reports everything OK, you will be fine.

> and
> 
> 2. What happens if I
> 
> /etc/init.d/udev restart
> 
> and there is an error of some kind?

Find someone to blame, but not me ;-)
 
> Will it cause my mail server to come crashing down? Or will it keep 
> running until I can determine the error and fix it?
> 
> Keep in mind - this is a server, and just runs 
> postfix/dovecot/apache/mysql...

I don't see it being a problem, but in that case, a reboot should clear
things. Just make sure you have a package of udev available in case
things do go TU.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

COMMAND: A suggestion made to a computer.

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

SOLVED: Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-10 8:11 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> I always emerge -pvuDN world and look very carefully at the results, and
> I also wait at least 2 or 3 days before installing any system critical
> updates (has saved me headaches more than once).
>
> Ok, here goes... ;)

Well, that was about as uneventful as it gets.

emerge -C udev

emerge -1 eudev

etc-update, accepted changes

/etc/init.d/udev restart

Done...

Thanks very much to all who replied to ease my worried mind (especially 
Neil). :)

I added a forum thread about this, just for closure:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7369696.html#7369696

Re: SOLVED: Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Dale]

Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-10 8:11 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>> I always emerge -pvuDN world and look very carefully at the results, and
>> I also wait at least 2 or 3 days before installing any system critical
>> updates (has saved me headaches more than once).
>>
>> Ok, here goes... ;)
>
> Well, that was about as uneventful as it gets.
>
> emerge -C udev
>
> emerge -1 eudev
>
> etc-update, accepted changes
>
> /etc/init.d/udev restart
>
> Done...
>
> Thanks very much to all who replied to ease my worried mind
> (especially Neil). :)
>
> I added a forum thread about this, just for closure:
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7369696.html#7369696
>
>

Glad it went well.  If you hadn't asked, it could have been a disaster. 
Murphy's law you know.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

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

Re: SOLVED: Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-10 2:47 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Well, that was about as uneventful as it gets.
>>
>> emerge -C udev
>>
>> emerge -1 eudev
>>
>> etc-update, accepted changes
>>
>> /etc/init.d/udev restart
>>
>> Done...
>>
>> Thanks very much to all who replied to ease my worried mind
>> (especially Neil). :)
>>
>> I added a forum thread about this, just for closure:
>>
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7369696.html#7369696

> Glad it went well.  If you hadn't asked, it could have been a disaster.
> Murphy's law you know.  ;-)

Exactly... ;)

Also, to correct the above - I did do one other thing, but didn't see it 
until I went to emerge something else...

When I emerged another app after updating udev, after the successful 
emerge there was a warning about some preserved libs fro the old udev, 
and it told me to (and so I did):

emerge @preserved-rebuild

to rebuild lvm2...

Thanks again... :) I'm just about done updating everything else that had 
gotten backed up by my holding off on doing anything about udev...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Walter Dnes]

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:57:52AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight 
> incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't 
> have to wait for the alternative providers.

  The elegant solution is outlined in my post...
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275977#275977

I.e. *UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EUDEV HITS STABLE* (on whatever arch you're
using), add the entry

<sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64

to package.keywords (replace amd64 with your arch if necessary).
Basically, if you keyword a specific version, and the ebuild gets
removed by "emerge --sync", there are no eudev ebuilds to satisfy
virtual/udev.  So portage falls back to udev.  My solution isn't
hard-coded to any one version, and is immune to to version bumps and
removals.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/08/13 08:36, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:57:52AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes slight
>> incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev, doesn't
>> have to wait for the alternative providers.
>
>    The elegant solution is outlined in my post...
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275977#275977
>
> I.e. *UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EUDEV HITS STABLE* (on whatever arch you're
> using), add the entry
>
> <sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64
>
> to package.keywords (replace amd64 with your arch if necessary).
> Basically, if you keyword a specific version, and the ebuild gets
> removed by "emerge --sync", there are no eudev ebuilds to satisfy
> virtual/udev.  So portage falls back to udev.  My solution isn't
> hard-coded to any one version, and is immune to to version bumps and
> removals.
>

bad idea to unmask "the new multilib eudev" on stable, regarding 
blockers it has like 
"!<=app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs-20130224-r7" on amd64 multilib 
when ABI_X86="32" is enabled

as in, unresolvable dependencies

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 773 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:36:59 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:

> > I expect it to happen around every new udev release that causes
> > slight incompability; the default of the virtual/udev, sys-fs/udev,
> > doesn't have to wait for the alternative providers.  
> 
>   The elegant solution is outlined in my post...
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/275977#275977
> 
> I.e. *UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EUDEV HITS STABLE* (on whatever arch you're
> using), add the entry
> 
> <sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64

I'm afraid that doesn't solve the problem I had at all, because I'm
running ~arch. It's as Samuli said, the eudev release lagged behind udev,
causing the virtual to look elsewhere for its satisfaction.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Loose bits sink chips.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-11 6:04 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm afraid that doesn't solve the problem I had at all, because I'm
> running ~arch. It's as Samuli said, the eudev release lagged behind udev,
> causing the virtual to look elsewhere for its satisfaction.

So, looks like the best strategy is not to blindly update eudev, and 
always check these things, before attempting an upgrade, and waiting for 
it to catch up if/when it happens.

No biggie, except maybe for those used to just blindly updating 
everything without looking.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 2013-08-11 6:04 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'm afraid that doesn't solve the problem I had at all, because I'm
> > running ~arch. It's as Samuli said, the eudev release lagged behind
> > udev, causing the virtual to look elsewhere for its satisfaction.  
> 
> So, looks like the best strategy is not to blindly update eudev, and 
> always check these things, before attempting an upgrade, and waiting
> for it to catch up if/when it happens.

Well, you shouldn't blindly update anything, but the issue here was
eudev *not* being updated when the virtual was, and both cause and
result were quite clear.
 
> No biggie, except maybe for those used to just blindly updating 
> everything without looking.

Those people are used to dealing with breakage, or soon will be :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-11 11:15 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:25:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> So, looks like the best strategy is not to blindly update eudev, and
>> always check these things, before attempting an upgrade, and waiting
>> for it to catch up if/when it happens.
>
> Well, you shouldn't blindly update anything,

True... and I never do. I sync daily, then do an emerge -pvuDN world, 
and note which packages want to be updated. I then track them, and after 
a few days, if nothing has changed, update them.

For critical apps (boot/system related or server app related (ie, 
postfix, dovecot, etc), I also always google for any problems with them 
(gentoo+appver) right before updating.

I was always fairly careful in the past, but I started being anal about 
it after I got bit by the minor mailman version bump a while (few 
years?) ago that changed the locations of critical stuff (like, where 
the lists were stored), thereby violating one of gentoo's cardinal rules 
that minor version bumps don't make changes that break things, at least 
not without lots of warning in the form of a detailed news item 
explaining what needs to be done to avoid the breakage.

> but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual
> was, and both cause and result were quite clear.

Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any 
mission critical apps, and that would include the virtual/udev as well.

That said - shouldn't this be taken care of by the the virtual/udev 
package itself? Shoudln't it keep track of what versions of udev *and* 
eudev it supports, and warn you (via a [B]blocker)?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:52:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> > but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual
> > was, and both cause and result were quite clear.  
> 
> Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any 
> mission critical apps, and that would include the virtual/udev as well.
> 
> That said - shouldn't this be taken care of by the the virtual/udev 
> package itself? Shoudln't it keep track of what versions of udev *and* 
> eudev it supports, and warn you (via a [B]blocker)?

There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The present never ages. Each moment is like a snowflake, unique,
unspoiled, unrepeatable, and can be appreciated in its surprisingness.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:52:26 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>>> but the issue here was eudev *not* being updated when the virtual
>>> was, and both cause and result were quite clear.
>>
>> Right, but I was talking about not updating *anything* related to any
>> mission critical apps, and that would include the virtual/udev as well.
>>
>> That said - shouldn't this be taken care of by the the virtual/udev
>> package itself? Shoudln't it keep track of what versions of udev *and*
>> eudev it supports, and warn you (via a [B]blocker)?
>
> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and
> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
>
>

I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in 
/var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does
As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted 
implementation is recorded in the world file or not

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and
>> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.

> I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
> /var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does
> As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted
> implementation is recorded in the world file or not

Well, in my opinion, that just seems wrong. Why does it prefer udev, if 
*neither* is in the world file?

In my opinion, it should be a 'B' blocker in both cases. It absolutely 
should not automatically uninstall eudev and install udev, potentially 
leaving the system in an unbootable state.

But... as long as the conflict is there (for  those who actually look 
for such things) and I can deal with it appropriately - ie, if a small b 
blocker and it wants to remove eudev and install udev, I just wait until ...

Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or 
virtual/udev? Or both?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alan McKinnon]

On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
>>> and
>>> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
> 
>> I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
>> /var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does
>> As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted
>> implementation is recorded in the world file or not
> 
> Well, in my opinion, that just seems wrong. Why does it prefer udev, if
> *neither* is in the world file?
> 
> In my opinion, it should be a 'B' blocker in both cases. It absolutely
> should not automatically uninstall eudev and install udev, potentially
> leaving the system in an unbootable state.
> 
> But... as long as the conflict is there (for  those who actually look
> for such things) and I can deal with it appropriately - ie, if a small b
> blocker and it wants to remove eudev and install udev, I just wait until
> ...
> 
> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
> virtual/udev? Or both?
> 

It has to do with how virtuals work.

If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the packages that satisfy
the virtual are in world, then portage is free to do whatever it deems
correct to satisfy the virtual. This is what it did, and it is rather
important you understand why this is so.

If you have the virtual in world, and one of the packages that satisfy
the virtual are in world, then portage will not uninstall that package
and instead obey your instruction.

Portage does not work according to whatever we think ought to be
logical. Portage works according to the PMS spec. In this case, it did
what you asked, which is not what you wanted.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/08/13 13:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
>>> and
>>> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
>
>> I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
>> /var/lib/portage/world, but 'B' if he does
>> As in, difference is soft and hard blocker depending if the wanted
>> implementation is recorded in the world file or not
>
> Well, in my opinion, that just seems wrong. Why does it prefer udev, if
> *neither* is in the world file?

Because it's the default in virtual/udev 
(/usr/portage/virtual/udev/udev-206-r2.ebuild)
As in, sys-fs/udev is the default of Gentoo

> In my opinion, it should be a 'B' blocker in both cases. It absolutely
> should not automatically uninstall eudev and install udev, potentially
> leaving the system in an unbootable state.

Portage doesn't work like that. If you step outside of the defaults, you 
need to record them in your world. It's sort of the logical step to do.

> But... as long as the conflict is there (for  those who actually look
> for such things) and I can deal with it appropriately - ie, if a small b
> blocker and it wants to remove eudev and install udev, I just wait until
> ...
>
> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
> virtual/udev? Or both?

When new version of sys-fs/udev is released with incompabilities with 
sys-fs/eudev, then new virtual version is created and dependencies 
inside of it set to compatible versions
And if there is no compatible version available, then the version is set 
to non-existing future-version number that /will be/ compatible with it
Which is exactly what happened earlier and will happen again

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> 
>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default
>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names
>>> work as designed, not a single valid bug filed about them.
>>> 
>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>> 
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like 
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
>>> later on.
>> 
>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>> spreading FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was
>> going to cause issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
> 
> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. And no,
> sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what 
> sys-fs/eudev has. Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to
> udev-bugs@g.o apply also to sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in
> their github ticketing system. And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to
> constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so it doesn't fall too much behind,
> which adds double work unnecessarily. They don't keep it up-to-date
> on their own without prodding.
> 
> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
> work and user confusion needs to stop.
> 
> - Samuli
> 
> 

* you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the
fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem
to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were
merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you
point out. That has been discussed numerous of times.
* claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven
* that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct
* that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not
for me since almost the beginning
* eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it
agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete
at some point, then it has been a success
* I don't understand why you add those rants all over different
mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision
about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that
people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason
to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive
and causes confusion.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSCMjkAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz4/cH/1k5tyYetIZp0t+5BE2ytCFS
0FldL3IxIbOe16rfNP9LH5yqe/RnhabUbeja//rqhmMTeDGEEGbM/YgY6Tqo4q6Y
usUQueYpwsVFAL9AL93+CLyQMC3cS6F1EFBeP98vcvErqHFPu9N/k2CXCQTWVlbe
Vnbb+X9m2enso1rvSm/MBjtykJRzLw+Mq6gdVS9Pthb+UU78dX109z1Xtt9pSrUB
Fa/NLvmQELu5QOb3+m6XXas8SoXUgjvKZ3xGgRjVmeCITBpjfsIf4KdvW0gqzOdE
XjuIlNMPpLMZiWDV8yYMq2OVzRDwm8jTvSG/S4j45rHmBvTZj6km8979HAihtaQ=
=Gnsu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
>> virtual/udev? Or both?

> It has to do with how virtuals work.
>
> If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the packages that satisfy
> the virtual are in world, then portage is free to do whatever it deems
> correct to satisfy the virtual. This is what it did, and it is rather
> important you understand why this is so.
>
> If you have the virtual in world, and one of the packages that satisfy
> the virtual are in world, then portage will not uninstall that package
> and instead obey your instruction.

Ok, I'm getting there...

I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do* 
have virtual/udev.

So, based on what Samuli said about sys-fs/udev being the gentoo default 
(where is this documented by the way?), seems the simplest thing to do 
is add sys-fs/eudev to @world, but is this really the most appropriate 
'gentoo way'?

Or, maybe just remove virtual/udev from @world? Or both (add 
sys-fs/eudev, remove virtual/udev)?

Actually, since udev/eudev are more appropriately @system packages, it 
would make more sense to add them there - except @system is defined not 
by a file but by the profile, and so would require a USE flag to define 
this, but if I recall, adding a USE flag for this was decided against 
(why I don't know)...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-12 7:37 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do*
> have virtual/udev.

Crap... I meant I do NOT have sys-fs/eudev (or sys-fs/udev) in @world...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default
>>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names
>>>> work as designed, not a single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>
>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>
>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
>>>> later on.
>>>
>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>>> spreading FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was
>>> going to cause issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>
>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. And no,
>> sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>> sys-fs/eudev has. Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to
>> udev-bugs@g.o apply also to sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in
>> their github ticketing system. And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to
>> constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so it doesn't fall too much behind,
>> which adds double work unnecessarily. They don't keep it up-to-date
>> on their own without prodding.
>>
>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
>>
>
> * you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the
> fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem

True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the 
Gentoo udev team despite being invited to.

> to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were
> merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you
> point out. That has been discussed numerous of times.
> * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven

I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus 
restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes 
creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for 
uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs.

> * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct
> * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not
> for me since almost the beginning
> * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it
> agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete
> at some point, then it has been a success
> * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different
> mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision
> about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that
> people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason
> to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive
> and causes confusion.

True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's 
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is 
annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alan McKinnon]

On 12/08/2013 13:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
>>> virtual/udev? Or both?
> 
>> It has to do with how virtuals work.
>>
>> If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the packages that satisfy
>> the virtual are in world, then portage is free to do whatever it deems
>> correct to satisfy the virtual. This is what it did, and it is rather
>> important you understand why this is so.
>>
>> If you have the virtual in world, and one of the packages that satisfy
>> the virtual are in world, then portage will not uninstall that package
>> and instead obey your instruction.
> 
> Ok, I'm getting there...
> 
> I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do*
> have virtual/udev.
> 
> So, based on what Samuli said about sys-fs/udev being the gentoo default
> (where is this documented by the way?), seems the simplest thing to do
> is add sys-fs/eudev to @world, but is this really the most appropriate
> 'gentoo way'?
> 
> Or, maybe just remove virtual/udev from @world? Or both (add
> sys-fs/eudev, remove virtual/udev)?
> 
> Actually, since udev/eudev are more appropriately @system packages,


This is incorrect. @system is the minimal set of packages for a Gentoo
system to work at all, and consists mostly of baselayout, toolchain and
various packages used by the toolchain.

A Gentoo system does NOT have to have a device manager to function, you
can accomplish that easily with static device nodes.

What is in @system is virtual/dev-manager which has this RDEPEND:

RDEPEND="|| (
                virtual/udev
                sys-apps/busybox[mdev]
                sys-fs/devfsd
                sys-fs/static-dev
                sys-freebsd/freebsd-sbin
        )"

So you are free to install any of those methods you choose and thereby
have working device nodes.

To back up what Samuli said, if you want to GUARANTEE a certain device
manager then you need to put it in @world, just like you already do for
all the other packages you have. udev is in no way special in this regard.


> it
> would make more sense to add them there - except @system is defined not
> by a file but by the profile, and so would require a USE flag to define
> this, but if I recall, adding a USE flag for this was decided against
> (why I don't know)...
> 


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
> how maintainership works.
> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.

It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read 
from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd 
maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a 
systemd-less udev...

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>
> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>> how maintainership works.
>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>
>
> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a systemd-less udev...
>

Correct. And because that we endorse it.
Look what happened with the logind.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>> how maintainership works.
>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>
> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read
> from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd
> maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a
> systemd-less udev...
>

Then we will carry a minimal patchset on top of sys-fs/udev that will 
keep it working without systemd for long as it's sustainable.
And at this point it's pointless to talk of forking yet, it should be 
done only when it's required.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/08/13 15:19, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>>> how maintainership works.
>>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>>
>>
>> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a systemd-less udev...
>>
>
> Correct. And because that we endorse it.
> Look what happened with the logind.

They made it clear from the start that logind is not going to work for 
non-systemd and that Ubuntu is doing something utter crazy.
We were going to ride with that horse at the expense of Ubuntu folks for 
a while, but dropped the effort as futile. Now Ubuntu is stuck at 
logind-204 and it's unclear what will they do next.
Don't try to twist it into anything it's not, it's not comparable w/ udev.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Alon Bar-Lev]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>>> how maintainership works.
>>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>>
>>
>> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read
>> from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd
>> maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a
>> systemd-less udev...
>>
>
> Then we will carry a minimal patchset on top of sys-fs/udev that will keep
> it working without systemd for long as it's sustainable.
> And at this point it's pointless to talk of forking yet, it should be done
> only when it's required.

It is done ahead so it won't be too late, as you say... eudev is
"minimal patch set" over systemd.

Someone should have forked the logind as well ahead, so the whole
gmone discussion was irrelevant.

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/08/13 15:38, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>>>> how maintainership works.
>>>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>>>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read
>>> from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd
>>> maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a
>>> systemd-less udev...
>>>
>>
>> Then we will carry a minimal patchset on top of sys-fs/udev that will keep
>> it working without systemd for long as it's sustainable.
>> And at this point it's pointless to talk of forking yet, it should be done
>> only when it's required.
>
> It is done ahead so it won't be too late, as you say... eudev is
> "minimal patch set" over systemd.
>
> Someone should have forked the logind as well ahead, so the whole
> gmone discussion was irrelevant.
>

It's not too late to fork logind in anyway, it's down to 204 in git and 
then review commits from there up to current w/ the required patches
Ubuntu carries for non-systemd operation (yes, logind from 204 never 
worked without patching either but the patches were just a lot less than 
what 206 would need).
But nobody has been willing to do the work. It was propably for the best 
we didn't ever adopt it at all since it's not sane to package software 
you can't then keep maintained.

- Samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[hasufell]

On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default
>>>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names
>>>>> work as designed, not a single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
>>>>> later on.
>>>>
>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>>>> spreading FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was
>>>> going to cause issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>>
>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. And no,
>>> sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>>> sys-fs/eudev has. Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to
>>> udev-bugs@g.o apply also to sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in
>>> their github ticketing system. And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to
>>> constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so it doesn't fall too much behind,
>>> which adds double work unnecessarily. They don't keep it up-to-date
>>> on their own without prodding.
>>>
>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>>
>>> - Samuli
>>>
>>>
>>
>> * you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the
>> fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem
> 
> True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the
> Gentoo udev team despite being invited to.

That's a bit unrelated. It wasn't just about the gentoo ebuild.

> 
>> to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were
>> merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you
>> point out. That has been discussed numerous of times.
>> * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven
> 
> I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus
> restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes
> creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for
> uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs.
> 

Wonder why udev upstream merged back changes if it was all that bad.

>> * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct
>> * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not
>> for me since almost the beginning
>> * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it
>> agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete
>> at some point, then it has been a success
>> * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different
>> mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision
>> about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that
>> people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason
>> to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive
>> and causes confusion.
> 
> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
> how maintainership works.
> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
> 

Who lied?

Re: [gentoo-user] Moving from old udev to eudev

[Samuli Suominen]

On 12/08/13 16:39, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>>>>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default
>>>>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names
>>>>>> work as designed, not a single valid bug filed about them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop spreading FUD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary
>>>>>> later on.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your real agenda is to kill eudev?  Maybe it is you that is
>>>>> spreading FUD instead of others.  Like others have said, udev was
>>>>> going to cause issues, eudev has yet to cause any.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, absolutely sys-fs/eudev should be punted from tree since it
>>>> doesn't bring in anything useful, and it reintroduced old bugs from
>>>> old version of udev, as well as adds confusing to users. And no,
>>>> sys-fs/udev doesn't have issues, in fact, less than what
>>>> sys-fs/eudev has. Like said earlier, the bugs assigned to
>>>> udev-bugs@g.o apply also to sys-fs/eudev and they have even more in
>>>> their github ticketing system. And sys-fs/udev maintainers have to
>>>> constantly monitor sys-fs/eudev so it doesn't fall too much behind,
>>>> which adds double work unnecessarily. They don't keep it up-to-date
>>>> on their own without prodding.
>>>>
>>>> Really, this is how it has went right from the start and the double
>>>> work and user confusion needs to stop.
>>>>
>>>> - Samuli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> * you are not telling the whole story about what happened and why the
>>> fork came into life in the first place. It's not as simple as you seem
>>
>> True, I didn't mention people were needlessly unwilling to join the
>> Gentoo udev team despite being invited to.
>
> That's a bit unrelated. It wasn't just about the gentoo ebuild.

That's all it was.

>>> to suggest. There were good reasons at that point. Some changes were
>>> merged by udev upstream and there are still more differences than you
>>> point out. That has been discussed numerous of times.
>>> * claiming that eudev didn't improve anything is wrong and can be proven
>>
>> I can easily prove eudev is nothing but udev and deleted code, plus
>> restored broken 'rule generator', plus useless kept static nodes
>> creation which was moved to kmod, plus needlessly changed code for
>> uclibc support -- uclibc now has the functions udev needs.
>>
>
> Wonder why udev upstream merged back changes if it was all that bad.

Merged back what changes? That'd be news to me. I think you might be 
confusing something.

>>> * that eudev is behind udev most of the time is correct
>>> * that it causes tons of breakage for users... well, I don't know, not
>>> for me since almost the beginning
>>> * eudev will not be treecleaned until the gentoo devs who maintain it
>>> agree (at best, it may be masked) and even if eudev will be obsolete
>>> at some point, then it has been a success
>>> * I don't understand why you add those rants all over different
>>> mailing lists. I have seen it numerous of times and your precision
>>> about explaining the situation does not improve. If you think that
>>> people need to be warned about eudev, then you should provide a reason
>>> to mask it or drop it back to ~arch. Anything else is not constructive
>>> and causes confusion.
>>
>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>> how maintainership works.
>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
>>
>
> Who lied?

Let's rephrase lying with FUD for correctness.