From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3B71381F3 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:59:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A77EF21C05A; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gg0-f181.google.com (mail-gg0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CC0C21C02F for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 23:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-gg0-f181.google.com with SMTP id s6so1291099ggc.40 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:58:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WM9YCpISnhFgPYbhKZg+x2DkUVLTqc+tU2s04b7U7DY=; b=bDue+10kfpLZM00O1sHxPg4dOzD9lbhfWWsWU07pzspHWh/OJgqgAqXnV/WykkY1vc Of3IUrAXeAnSQyIXL/y60U9Nkn3y8cHUrV6XeY7+iAFlv5ch9mR7PRBCEKXIswMWOkni EP9YhcrdOftGH07EJ+mCIKxgMIFv3Dv3fpP55Mqx6ZIOlJfE9Md8R8h4ce9XiAUrKUtF YO9U5VFXyWtq1y5PHn0IZpwut4YWXYHeXfXX+ciu0ZHJMtV9twbRbHBKFMURUTtyDyBP VxXX1RmS5CI4nVVPiUCxmauihuGGTCLcumpx2Y75ZlEi4EvHRsHgM6Sm0YyLZieTIgqV YvVA== X-Received: by 10.236.190.194 with SMTP id e42mr21528596yhn.28.1356393506290; Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:58:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-94-18.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.94.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e39sm2185772ani.16.2012.12.24.15.58.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:58:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50D8EC1F.4020303@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:58:23 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0 SeaMonkey/2.14.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? References: <20121218163332.7956f31a@khamul.example.com> <87txrd6pb3.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121223182037.1553813f@khamul.example.com> <87bodk7lb6.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com> <50D85167.9060309@gmail.com> <20121224204817.335033c6@khamul.example.com> <50D8B467.4080100@gmail.com> <20121224233106.GN26547@server> In-Reply-To: <20121224233106.GN26547@server> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 7e0643fc-7ab5-497a-909c-cb2b69f0b27a X-Archives-Hash: 061a41e50f74df5d462d7b831d72237a Bruce Hill wrote: > On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: >> Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. >> Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. >> The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't >> control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's >> not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended >> on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug >> events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper >> resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few >> ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was >> facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. >> Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand >> that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial >> dependencies.) > You're stumbling upon it ... just keep hashing it out. > > The decision to write a new init system (systemd) and do things altogether > differently is exactly what caused your previously referred to train wreck. > And Kay Sievers collaborating with Lennart on this corrupted udev. Take those > two prima donnas out of the udev destruction, and no such init problem exists > today ... just as it didn't exist before then, for so many years. > > Linus didn't tolerate what they did to module and firmware loading: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 > > and he placed the blame squarely on Lennart and Kay where it belongs. To quote > Linus Torvalds: > > "What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it?" > > Bank on it ... he *will* keep these prima donnas from destroying it. There's > quite the historical precedent for such. I find it fitting that me and Linus agree on udev. ROFL I'm not alone but still. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!