From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1S7qpa-0003NY-NU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:13:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 489D7E0963; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:13:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F736E090F for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vx0-f181.google.com ([209.85.220.181]) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S7qoW-003asA-Ir for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:12:36 +0700 Received: by vcge1 with SMTP id e1so2482242vcg.40 for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.52.90.178 with SMTP id bx18mr2245684vdb.123.1331741550503; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.58.200 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.58.200 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120314151620.GB24395@acm.acm> References: <20120313130534.GB3457@acm.acm> <20120313190052.GA2430@waltdnes.org> <20120313194727.GB2536@acm.acm> <20120313210737.GD2536@acm.acm> <20120313213330.78c5ebf7@digimed.co.uk> <20120313222019.GE2536@acm.acm> <20120313230358.GF2536@acm.acm> <20120314151620.GB24395@acm.acm> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:12:30 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-( From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071cffa0ce5c704bb363e97 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Archives-Salt: c8fba5e9-b6c7-488a-9783-9c53293513b6 X-Archives-Hash: 4599d395f5b88b6ea907521114f1d092 --20cf3071cffa0ce5c704bb363e97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 14, 2012 10:20 PM, "Alan Mackenzie" wrote: > ---- >8 snippage > > Walter is, I believe, mistaken here. I can mount and use my LVM2 > partitions. Gnome looks like it comes up OK, but that could be moot, > since right now I haven't got keyboard/mouse drivers under the X server. > This post here: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076662.html seems to indicate that Xorg communicates with udev (something mdev can't do, because that would increase the complexity of mdev by several orders of magnitude). BUT, in the same message, it is stated that Xorg *can* be compiled to *not* try to communicate with udev. I suspect a similar situation with Gnome. > > I will not be surprised if in the future the list of programs "not for > > mdev" only grows. > > There's a difference between "needed by portage" and "doesn't work under > mdev". As I say, it will all be moot if the evdev driver won't work > under mdev. > Do packages *actually* need udev's (over)features (read: bloat), or is it just the maintainers depend-ing on sys-fs/udev instead of virtual/device-manager ? For lots of packages claiming they depend on udev, I suspect it's the latter situation. Rgds, --20cf3071cffa0ce5c704bb363e97 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 14, 2012 10:20 PM, "Alan Mackenzie" <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>

---- >8 snippage

>
> Walter is, I believe, mistaken here. =C2=A0I can mount and use my LVM2=
> partitions. =C2=A0Gnome looks like it comes up OK, but that could be m= oot,
> since right now I haven't got keyboard/mouse drivers under the X s= erver.
>

This post here:

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076662= .html

seems to indicate that Xorg communicates with udev (something mdev can&#= 39;t do, because that would increase the complexity of mdev by several orde= rs of magnitude).

BUT, in the same message, it is stated that Xorg *can* be compiled to *n= ot* try to communicate with udev.

I suspect a similar situation with Gnome.

> > I will not be surprised if in the future the list of programs = "not for
> > mdev" only grows.
>
> There's a difference between "needed by portage" and &qu= ot;doesn't work under
> mdev". =C2=A0As I say, it will all be moot if the evdev driver wo= n't work
> under mdev.
>

Do packages *actually* need udev's (over)features (read: bloat), or = is it just the maintainers depend-ing on sys-fs/udev instead of virtual/dev= ice-manager ?

For lots of packages claiming they depend on udev, I suspect it's th= e latter situation.

Rgds,

--20cf3071cffa0ce5c704bb363e97--