2012/6/15 William Hubbs <w.d.hu...@gmail.com> > Hello Auke, > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:26:36AM +0000, Kok, Auke-jan H wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:32 AM, William Hubbs <w.d.hu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hello Auke, > > > > > > I will answer your concerns as best as I can below. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 03:35:09PM -0700, Kok, Auke-jan H wrote: > > >> 1) Timing. systemd+udevd just got merged. We had a huge build system > > >> change. Let's not change it drastically again entirely now. > > > > > > From the point of view of a source based distro, the build system > > > as it currently stands is broken. Upstream supports running udev > without > > > systemd, so why not building udev standalone as well, especially since > > > there is interest in doing the work? > > > > It's not broken at all. What is broken is the assumption that one can > just > > run `make install` willy nilly in a source distro and overwrite files in > > the live system. > > > > This is a design problem in ALL source based distro's (including the one > > I worked on for years) and can't be fixed by upstream. Source distro's > > should really work on doing a proper `make DESTDIR= install` or use > > fakeroot/chroot installs and buffer the installation of files before the > > real rootfs is overwritten. > > > > Not solving that is an error that the source distributions should solve, > > and definitely should not be the reason for an upstream project to jump > > to the aid of source distros. > > As Wulf already pointed out, gentoo already does this properly, and we > also do our own sanity checks before we move the package to the live fs. > > This is definitely not an issue we expect upstream projects to solve > other than supporting DESTDIR, which udev and systemd already do. > > > >> 4) Can be maintained out of tree for now: Nothing prevents gentoo from > > >> keeping this patch out of tree for their purposes. > > > > > > Yes, we could, but what about exherbo, funtoo, linux from scratch and > > > the other source based distros that may be out there? > > > > they could pull the patch from gentoo's repository. > > I suppose they could if they were comfortable doing that, but I tend to > agree with Wulf on this; I would rather not have custom patches being > shared between distros. Honestly I would rather have as few custom > patches as possible; custom patches can be a headache to maintain. > > > I think this patch would be a lot more acceptable if you drop the split > > Makefile.am, remove the --disable-systemd option and just create an extra > > "make install-udev" target. > > > > It would be a lot smaller too. > > I could rework it so I don't split up the makefiles, sure, but let me > explain why the install-udev target does not solve the issue we are > trying to solve. > > systemd has several more dependencies than udev. Because of that and > because of the way the build system is setup to only do a full systemd > build, I have to install all of systemd's dependencies on every gentoo > user's system regardless of whether or not they are using systemd or > udev standalone. >
That's not true. Please tell us exactly which lib is use only by systemd and not by the rest of the system. > > What I need is a way to tell the configure script and Makefiles that I > am only interested in building udev and not a full systemd build. > > There was another patch that came from the linux from scratch community > posted on the linux-hotplug list [1]. > > I spoke with Kay about that patch, and he didn't sound like he liked it > too much. > > William > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg05529.html > > _______________________________________________ > systemd-devel mailing list > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel > >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel