On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Greg KH <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote >> >> > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you >> > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be >> > accomplished by: >> > - getting patches approved upstream >> > or: >> > - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and >> > applying them to each release >> >> That approach would be viable if upstream were co-operative or gave a > damn about anybody else. They've broken people's sytems with the "new >> and improved" udev, and claimed that people's systems were already >> broken. Kay Sievers got Linus angry enough to go on a rant. See >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/3/484 > > Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers. It's now > resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads firmware > directly, and on older kernels, udev has fixed the issue.) So that's no > longer an issue for anyone. > >> In short, the systemd-udev people are hard to work with in general, >> and have a dislike for Gentoo. Good luck with getting patches accepted >> by them. > > The fact that Gentoo is alone in wanting to build udev, without systemd > dependencies being on the system, is something that if I were the > systemd maintainer, I would reject. It's also a pretty simple set of > patches that Gentoo can keep around if it's really a serious issue for > people. > >> > Oh, and if _anyone_ thinks that changing udev is going to "solve" the >> > "no separate /usr without an initrd" issue, I have a bridge I want to >> > sell them. >> >> If udev-systemd merely broke a filesystem layout that functioned very >> well in linux for 2 decades, you would not be seeing this rebellion. > > Note, a separate /usr has been broken for a while now, udev is just > pointing the issue out. And again, if you want a separate /usr, just > use an initrd, the solution is simple. > >> udev-systemd is also breaking media drivers. The entire thread >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/194 gives an idea of just how badly Kay >> has screwed up udev. You participated in that thread. > > Again, this is now resolved, no need to keep beating it :) > >> How many people have read Siever's post? >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html >> > We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never >> > told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands. >> > >> > We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation >> > always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd. >> > >> > I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the >> > announcement, it just wasn't written there. >> >> You (the former udev maintainer) are saying that a standalone udev >> *WITHOUT SYSTEMD* will always be possible. The current maintainer is >> saying that isn't necessarily true. Who do you expect me to believe? > > They are saying it as well. It's Gentoo that is unique in wanting to > build it without the rest of the systemd package as well. Two different > things here. > >> You also wrote... >> >> > And is something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of >> > a working udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, >> > it is a regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of >> > more processes to be spawned before booting is finished.) >> >> Some people are finding firmware drivers not loading, and the cards >> not functioning. Don't you consider that a regression? > > Again, been a bug for 6 months, hit by very few people, now resolved, > not an issue. > >> Seiver's response is basically the same as for people with separate >> /usr; telling them that they have to re-write their drivers to >> accomadate the "new and improved" udev. And people whose drivers >> don't fail entirely now get a 60-second delay while udev times out >> before loading the firmware in another manner. Those people have seen >> their bootup times increased by a full minute. Do you not consider >> that a regression? > > Again, now resolved, not an issue. > >> > You need to have a real solid goal in place in order to be able to keep >> > this up in the long-run. Otherwise you are going to burn yourself out, >> > and end up alienating a lot of people along the way. >> >> Howsabout a standalone udev, with no dependancies on systemd, and it >> won't break people's systems? > > If that is the goal, great, it would be wonderful if someone would say > that. But from looking at the commits so far in the repo, it really > doesn't look like that is the goal. Or if it is, it's getting there in > a very odd way.
The project is like a day old, chillax. > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
