From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-159779-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9465138825
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:30:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F30DAE0907;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:30:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (mail-qa0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7648E08F6
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:30:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id x12so5146961qac.7
        for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:30:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
         :from:to:content-type;
        bh=c6yptiAa53tOHT5uiKdy7QS0UJwOK7W4Ggkv6eFOHRc=;
        b=krhq3D9sjRAcTREAf+bLH3KxH1+JzbXS7fbSxhqDrijN7p/C1AXyMqJuVccHzQ6VVF
         N2jXga1K7M+gPNuc+Gc2xIW+55SUJcCxIqYI/yZRS6bva3CUYfQ/ckSY+dEAXeZ/gnpE
         vF6kCeFnY5s8CknrvfMFfeepjXGo55eMpAs6FlbPw5+NaYJUKVUUU1aCilRJ2YMxrlbQ
         reil/+kOAzoZJtqwXl1X3TCph9g+l/hlvgJsQ7xQaAcJfnZ2j30vXimB5zZPRa6UPT+P
         rdYiZlzf4ZGWFXHkljfE6Jesz0PpQt6u/IDZ/mYxpdLfaD4PJddxs2EoPl3u3F7KR1bD
         xfqg==
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
X-Received: by 10.140.81.36 with SMTP id e33mr40849055qgd.90.1415622643782;
 Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:30:43 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.102.198 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:30:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54609BD1.2000206@libertytrek.org>
References: <loom.20140925T172011-995@post.gmane.org>
	<54245C36.50507@gentoo.org>
	<loom.20140925T205754-368@post.gmane.org>
	<5424F3F2.2020808@gentoo.org>
	<54609BD1.2000206@libertytrek.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 07:30:43 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: RdiCXgdvxk3yPDoOsBK-MevWv6g
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=VHEByYaaaAnB+uQQz647486K0qzaO-2vezSc8PF0rsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev (viable) alternatives ?
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 8c5340a7-5b20-4458-9d77-ed8e0c38a214
X-Archives-Hash: ba895b9f1d31435e053cd91994f36f12

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>
> eudev is looking more attractive every day... but can it continue to
> work and be supported if Lennart gets his way and upstream udev stops
> working without systemd?
>

Well, there are no plans to make udev stop working without systemd as
far as I can tell.  HOWEVER, there ARE plans to require using kdbus to
communicate with udev, and for that to work there needs to be a
userspace initialization of kdbus/etc.

Udev is probably just be the tip of the iceberg.  Lots of packages use
dbus, and it seems likely to me that many will start switching to
kdbus.  The fact that it is going to be a standard kernel IPC
mechanism also means that packages that have avoided dbus in the
interests of not having large dependencies may start picking it up as
well - it might be used even on embedded systems.

I have no idea how much work is involved or if anybody else is
interested in doing it.  If busybox is willing to have their mdev
module, I don't see why they wouldn't want a kdbus module to go along
with that.  However, that is speaking mostly out of ignorance, and
somebody needs to write the code.

I don't think avoiding kdbus is going to be a viable long-term
solution.  Folks who don't want to run systemd need to start planning
for this, and cross "needs dbus" off their list of reasons not to use
systemd.

--
Rich