From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-133349-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1RiabT-0004oM-Lr
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:50:43 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1319921C040;
Wed, 4 Jan 2012 23:50:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ey0-f181.google.com (mail-ey0-f181.google.com [209.85.215.181])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C92A21C023
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 23:49:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by eaai1 with SMTP id i1so12473251eaa.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=dWxGHGay1LO1hGATKonldZ1q7mB4RG2HZFFpy0lT4kI=;
b=oXttcRtwwreHWOGy90YiKK9WYEt4o/eCKdHZ7NaI+cRQgsgohEkMYeLk3r6gUeW6b8
bnUGwHbPCX60H/+ID2n8iCV8ufCBco3R2YKhHWTkg17aTciA5RIY6LW7sEZAha5IfDja
YLEwE9vq1kVlrhv7/nRp0bYUXx+e9LaCxufQA=
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.205.120.14 with SMTP id fw14mr13568624bkc.53.1325720969443;
Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.177.18 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 15:49:29 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4F04E1B4.3050901@gmail.com>
References: <20111115062115.GA3262@waltdnes.org>
<20111121104724.GC7461@waltdnes.org>
<20111201194544.GD4455@waltdnes.org>
<20120103100445.GD1961@waltdnes.org>
<CAA2qdGVZQdSLiPXwCiXxXAvMacwihqDjZ-wwL55V9dRVNnq+rA@mail.gmail.com>
<20120103123209.GB2410@nicolas-desktop>
<CAA2qdGX-Hubx0QzsRJSkwJtTqGcSpNADi=4s52_RbPOremSCLw@mail.gmail.com>
<20120103131346.GC2410@nicolas-desktop>
<CAA2qdGXWWZe_xVWWKAWAcfwhaQ9MxOfat0PDzCbiedRXvYd-kw@mail.gmail.com>
<20120103143120.GF2410@nicolas-desktop>
<20120103221555.22c778a3@digimed.co.uk>
<4F038C23.5030708@gmail.com>
<CAA2qdGVPag6XWU_vUDzk5dkX3YrcdHNnDgLB7qp+7Th7NhfAtg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADPrc81YiGs3sEptADAUHjBxmY6ANz-G3Gu8JwjzO=16DULUqA@mail.gmail.com>
<4F04E1B4.3050901@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 18:49:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+czFiBtkp26DupBFMRf0upqR14BxZgbPiKAQ6O8yNF9kV+SKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev;
version 3
From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: bdf36f3e-4b62-4937-b09c-891b47d62c3c
X-Archives-Hash: c17894427a6d5f90132ecdfa805771c4
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Pandu Poluan<pandu@poluan.info> =C2=A0wr=
ote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2012 6:19 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1967@gmail.com> =C2=A0wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:31:20 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know. It's the "I want to get the rid of initramfs" thing that loo=
ks
>>>>>> crazy to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one is saying they want to get rid of the initramfs, because they
>>>>> are
>>>>> not using one. What people object to is being forced to start using
>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You got that right. =C2=A0I have not used one since I started using Ge=
ntoo.
>>>> =C2=A0Now, I may very well have to start. =C2=A0I hope mdev gets to a =
point where
>>>> it
>>>> works really well on desktop systems.
>>>>
>>> You were there in the thread linked by Walt, udev is just one of severa=
l
>>> packages maintained by RH people that *demands* /usr to be mounted duri=
ng
>>> boot.
>>>
>>> And the RH devels insistence to deprecate /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin...
>>>
>>> I'm getting depressed. One battle might be won (mdev vs udev), but
>>> there's
>>> still a war against the RH braindeadness...
>>
>> I'm sorry to tell you this, but (as admirable as it could be), the
>> mdev hack to use it instead of udev is not a "victory". We are not at
>> war, in the first place; and in the second place, the mdev hack would
>> be used by a handful of guys bent on refusing a change that, like it
>> or not, would in the end come. Like Gentoo on FreeBSD, it would be a
>> nice hack, maybe even worthy of applause, but in the end irrelevant: a
>> toy. A cute, entertaining (and, in a few cases, useful) toy. But a toy
>> nonetheless.
>>
>> The heavy development will continue to happen in udev, and the devices
>> that will dominate in the future (touchscreens, bluetooth input and
>> audio devices, hardware that has a highly dynamic change rate) will
>> only be supported by udev. The mdev hack will be useful maybe to only
>> some guys, and even then udev would be able to do the same (and more).
>>
>> The use of an initramfs (or, alternatively, having /usr in the same
>> partition as /), and maybe the move of /bin to /usr/bin and /lib to
>> /usr/lib will be made, and in the future most of the interesting
>> software will simply assume that this is how a system works. Maybe we
>> will even stop to use the ridiculous short directory names from the
>> stone age, and we will start using sensible names:
>>
>> /usr -> =C2=A0/System
>> /etc -> =C2=A0/Config
>> /var -> =C2=A0/Variable
>>
>> I feel a deep respect for the people working on making mdev a
>> "replacement" of udev; it is not an easy task (even if it only works
>> for a really small subset of the use cases udev covers), and something
>> that I certainly would never do. But their hack (as beautiful as it
>> may be) will never be used by the majority of Linux users, and
>> probably not even by the majority of Gentoo users (if my
>> interpretation of the discussion on gentoo-dev is correct). And with
>> the pass of time it will be harder and harder to keep the hack working
>> with new hardware, new software, and new use cases.
>>
>> But, hey, this is FOSS; you guys go nuts hacking in whatever feature
>> (or anti-feature) you like. As in the case of this mdev hack, it may
>> even be included in the Gentoo ebuilds. Just don't expect it to be
>> supported forever, don't expect it to support general-purpose setups,
>> and certainly don't call it "a victory". It's just the same history as
>> always: the people writing the code are the ones calling the shots.
>>
>> Regards.
>
>
> I wonder how many times this has been said about other software that is n=
ow
> in wide spread use. =C2=A0Keep in mind, some people think Gentoo is dying=
and has
> been dying for YEARS. =C2=A0That's not just one package but a whole distr=
o.
Netcraft confirms it?
>
> Will mdev replace udev, I dunno. =C2=A0Thing is, you don't know that it w=
on't
> either. =C2=A0Someone could come along and help Walter and make it better=
than
> udev ever dreamed of being.
It's not that mdev will be better than udev, or udev better than mdev,
it's that they'll be able to service different roles very effectively.
> I just have to mention hal too. =C2=A0Lots of people thought that was the=
new
> sliced bread and frozen pizza. =C2=A0It sure did fall hard tho.
For a fair number of use cases, udev works pretty well. It's been
around for far longer, too.
> As I said about my ex once, time tells. =C2=A0Sometimes, time is the only=
thing
> that does tell too. =C2=A0Reminds me of wine although I don't drink it.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at udev and mdev as winner
or loser. I'm not trying to be even-handed or fair in this; I just
think they service different needs.
Currently, the only advantage I see for udev in a server is the
ability to give network interfaces meaningful names...
--=20
:wq