On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:08:05 +1200 Daniel Reurich <dan...@centurion.net.nz> wrote:
> > I've been at work for a week or so and today I looked at the DNG > > list for the latest activities around vdev, but there has almost > > been no activity on vdev as far as I can see. OTOH, last week I > > tested eudev on a separate partition and that seems to work quite > > well. > > You are mistaken, there has been lots of activity around vdev and > making it installable. I still encounter problems. When running a kernel without initramfs one or another way vdev refuses to start because /var/log/vdev is not writable. The only way to make it start is to use /dev/null as logfile and restart it in rc.local. > > I think it might be a good idea to leave vdev for what it is and > > to switch to eudev. It is moreorless maintained (the latest change > > is two weeks ago) and it works well. We should not reinvent the > > wheel IMHO. And as there has been no response from the original > > vdev author, I think it's better to package eudev for Devuan and to > > make it available for Jessie and Ascii. The latest version is 3.2. > > Well quite frankly you don't get to make that call. Eudev is just a > hack that from what I gather is isolating the systemd-udev changes and > bringing them in to eudev. IMHO that is less sustainable then vdev > because it relies on developers from systemd to play nice with udev > and not deprecate features that don't serve systemd's needs. At the > end of the day, I consider eudev as at best marginally better the > eudev, but still far to closely coupled with systemd to be useful in > the medium to long term. That is some or other form of FUD. I hear these "it's too dependent of systemd" arguments quite often here, but I don't think the Gentoo folks would have used eudev if they were fearing the same. Devuan is 99% Debian, that is even more a big threat if you consider the systemd imperialisation. > With regards to vdev, I'm sure if Jude didn't come back, others would > pick up his work and progress it, as is happening now around packaging > it. I think it rather disingenuous of you to imply it's a dead > project whilst claiming that eudev, the re-animated zombie of > systemd-udev as a better and only option. It's not better, and it's > not the only option either. No, but I fear vdev is stillborn. It's an orphaned project for the moment. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather run vdev than another device manager. The thing is: we may be able package it and to run it in Jessie (as we tried last week), but will vdev still work in a year or so if there's no development of vdev itself? > Whilst I respect the work to package eudev and having it as an option > in Devuan, I will personally very loudly push back on any attempt to > derail alternatives such as vdev - unless those alternative are > demonstrably built on the same flawed design principles as systemd. I agree, but unfortunately nobody has the time and the skills to pick up vdev and to continue its development. I have neither the time, nor the skills unfortunately, otherwise I would certainly have participated in the project. For the moment Devuan is still equipped with udev-systemd, so Devuan is very very dependent on the systemd guys. Just something nobody wants here. And with "freedom of choice" in mind: indeed, it would be nice if eudev would be available anyway, whether vdev will be continued or not. R. -- richard lucassen http://contact.xaq.nl/ _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
