Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Announce: just another one udev fork
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12, 13, 14  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

grey_dot wrote:

I've just submitted a bug to bugzilla. Lets wait :)

Thank you, keep up the good work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2410
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
I seem to be getting kudos where its undeserved, I'm just a user and early adopter, and my contribution has been more in terms of providing feedback and helping out those who run into issues. I'm not directly involved with the fork, grey_dot and consus should receive full credit for that.

Yes, that's true, but I've given you credit for the simple reason that you're doing QA work, and also providing ebuilds for stuff where needed (ie integration.)
Quote:
Truth be told I'm actually a little nervous about the whole thing

Again, it's good that you've raised those concerns, and action is being taken.

I'd recommend chatting with WilliamH in #openrc (IRC chat.freenode.net) as he was asking about naming conflicts. I only found out a couple of weeks ago that he is blind, and uses a screen-reader, so he may well have difficulty wading through tonnes of forum posts, whereas IRC is much more direct. (Learning that only increased my respect for the amount of code he produces.)

Hopefully he'll respond on the bug, I'll point it out to him. But I still think a "direct" conversation is the best approach, rather than to-and-fro-ing on a bug report.
Quote:
steveL ... I'll look at integrating these into udev-init-scripts in my overlay ...

That'd be great, as concern about when udev starts is the only thing that's stopping me switching. (Well, I'd rather it was a differently-named package which also satisfied the virtual..;)

Regards,
steveL.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
grey_dot
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveL wrote:

Quote:
steveL ... I'll look at integrating these into udev-init-scripts in my overlay ...

That'd be great, as concern about when udev starts is the only thing that's stopping me switching. (Well, I'd rather it was a differently-named package which also satisfied the virtual..;)

Regards,
steveL.


Hey, check out udev-init-scripts in udev overlay. Consus has moved udev path to /etc/conf.d/udev, so you can adjust it when needed without actually editing init script. Thats the best idea we have for now. Suggestions are welcome :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4151

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should rename it to something and dropping any udev reference from soname lib and init script.

As-is your fork put too much ambiguity with udev. People will get force to revdep-rebuild against the new soname lib, but nobody will mistake your fork with udev, and things will get clear.
I'm saying it because i think, gentoo devs will complain, users might report udev bugs as yours and invert. Preventing any adoption in the tree.
And for the arch linux guy, he just need to make a symbolic link if he wish keep the "i'm udev" hack.

having your script name udev-init-scripts per example can keep confusion and unwanted behavior, while even rename, if endorse, yourprog-init-scripts will be add and handle like any supported program. And the git repo named udev is worst :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
VinzC
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 17 Apr 2004
Posts: 4665
Location: Theux (Belgium)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi. I have absolutely no knowledge of systemd but isn't it wiser or more logical (all personal issues apart) if systemd was split or allowed to split its components into separate parts, e.g. systemd-udev or whatever (just like KDE or Xorg did years ago)? Now that Arch is moving towards systemd, I guess maintaining a split udev branch like this will become more and more likely to absorb much energy to the expense of other projects — it's my own feeling, just tell me if I'm wrong. If that was possible then all Gentoo would need is a meta package to incorporate all systemd components. Now the question is how much work would that require?

Does it make sense? Call me an idiot if necessary :D .
_________________
Gentoo addict: tomorrow I quit, I promise!... Just one more emerge...
GNU/Linux user #369763
“Wow! I feel root”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaggyStyle
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 4915

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VinzC wrote:
Hi. I have absolutely no knowledge of systemd but isn't it wiser or more logical (all personal issues apart) if systemd was split or allowed to split its components into separate parts, e.g. systemd-udev or whatever (just like KDE or Xorg did years ago)? Now that Arch is moving towards systemd, I guess maintaining a split udev branch like this will become more and more likely to absorb much energy to the expense of other projects — it's my own feeling, just tell me if I'm wrong. If that was possible then all Gentoo would need is a meta package to incorporate all systemd components. Now the question is how much work would that require?

Does it make sense? Call me an idiot if necessary :D .


well it seems that the actions of the udev developers is starting to angry the kernel devs and there are some calling to create a udev replacment so IMHO this does make sense until either the udev devs will cave in (extremely not likely) or the kernel devs will decide they had enough and will take action.
_________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:

well it seems that the actions of the udev developers is starting to angry the kernel devs and there are some calling to create a udev replacment so IMHO this does make sense until either the udev devs will cave in (extremely not likely) or the kernel devs will decide they had enough and will take action.

It would be great if that happened, but it looks like the thread where they were going off about udev, has cooled down. It would be really awesome if they did something about this. It would be guaranteed to have some effect.
VinzC wrote:
Hi. I have absolutely no knowledge of systemd but isn't it wiser or more logical (all personal issues apart) if systemd was split or allowed to split its components into separate parts, e.g. systemd-udev or whatever (just like KDE or Xorg did years ago)?

That would make sense, but it seems the entire reason udev was merged into systemd was to force the usage of systemd in the first place, so it seems very unlikely that will happen, if ever.
steveL wrote:

I'd recommend chatting with WilliamH in #openrc (IRC chat.freenode.net) as he was asking about naming conflicts. I only found out a couple of weeks ago that he is blind, and uses a screen-reader, so he may well have difficulty wading through tonnes of forum posts, whereas IRC is much more direct. (Learning that only increased my respect for the amount of code he produces.)

That's actually really amazing.
-------------------------------------
It's unfortunate that there is so much animosity towards this fork on the part of Gentoo devs, it would seem that this would be something they would quickly accept, but it looks like the bug got rejected. This udev nonsense with upstream is so stupid, I wish it would get sorted out.

I really think it's time for a name change for the fork, the suggested 'nudev' seems appropriate. I think one of the reasons this is failing to get traction is because of the name, and confusion about what the fork actually is. And then the ebuild could just install the appropriate udev symlinks to whatever the fork is called.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hcaulfield57 wrote:
It's unfortunate that there is so much animosity towards this fork on the part of Gentoo devs

Just a stupid question :

If major distros opt for upstream's udev (with or without systemd) then, on our system we will get either /usr not as a separate partition or initramfs.

=> No longer needed to care for /lib and /bin => Easier work for everybody packaging whatever software. Binaries will get installed in /usr/bin and libraries in /usr/lib period.

If I go for This-Udev-Fork which enables me to keep my /usr in a separate partition without needing initramfs...

Who will take care of my /lib and /bin ?

This-Udev-Fork's maintainers, Me, Nobody or the Gentoo Devs ?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 31713
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

VinzC,

Unfortunately, the udev devs have yet to learn the lessons that the Xorg and KDE teams did when they broke up their monoliths.
The other thing driving udev into the arms of systemd is it could allow systemd to hold the rest of the Linux world to ransom.

Maybe the good idea fairy will revist systemd ...
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
grey_dot
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aCOSwt wrote:

=> No longer needed to care for /lib and /bin => Easier work for everybody packaging whatever software. Binaries will get installed in /usr/bin and libraries in /usr/lib period.


In this case we are fucked. Period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aCOSwt
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 2537
Location: Hilbert space

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

grey_dot wrote:
aCOSwt wrote:

=> No longer needed to care for /lib and /bin => Easier work for everybody packaging whatever software. Binaries will get installed in /usr/bin and libraries in /usr/lib period.


In this case we are fucked. Period.

So now that we can consider we are anyway...
Let's just think.

You have achieved a great job grey_dot & Co, but only the simplest part of it.
Now, considering that the major originality of your fork is /usr as a separate partition with no initramfs, you've got to sell this idea to those who would have to keep on maintaining installations in /lib and /bin.
Either sell it or... find some automagick way to maintain these dirs effortlessly.
_________________


Last edited by aCOSwt on Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4151

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hcaulfield57 wrote:

It's unfortunate that there is so much animosity towards this fork on the part of Gentoo devs, it would seem that this would be something they would quickly accept, but it looks like the bug got rejected. This udev nonsense with upstream is so stupid, I wish it would get sorted out.

From what i see, what you called dev animosity is that someone (dunno, we "users" could do that, and we do mistake, specially with a program named udev like "udev") assign that bug to udev team, as such, team complain about it as it as no relation to udev. That's why dev told you if you need any udev related change, ring them, else it's not their task.
Now the bug is assign to "Default Assignee for New Packages" : it mean waiting for a dev to endorse the package, if none do it, it will be reject.

If you really wish this add, do it like it should be done, i don't know really the rules and where to catch them, but it should be close to that, from experience and memory, so take it as it is, just hint, could be far from truth. At least, #gentoo-bugs could have help you on that.

1/ a bug to add it to tree (it mean calling a dev to endorse it): because until grey_dot is a gentoo dev, his package won't be accept if no gentoo dev endorse it. Kinda of a sponsoring, and this even the gentoo dev will only submit change to the tree, it will be his account and him that should answer any problem the program might introduce. So this "sponsorship" is not a 0 work for him.
2/ another bug with a called for change to add it to the virtual/udev depending/blocking bug 1
3/ The real way to add it is becoming a gentoo dev and endorse it yourself (again rules exist for that, with test... i won't discuss this, it's just to show another possible solve)

As i said, the ambiguity of the name will harm the project, that's was the first hit. So i won't say it will not be add, but you've taken a bad step in the process for sure.
You should have also notice that this thread should have been drop to unsupport software, now it is in kernel&hardware and even more, made sticky, that's a silent move to help you and another sign that fork isn't considered as bad as you think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 31713
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn,

... or add it to the Sunrise overlay so it gets more exposure than it would on a bug.

However, it cannot be called udev. There is already a udev package in the tree, so a name change is required.
A further advantage to Sunrise is the comiters begin to get exposure to Gentoo devs - it makes the path to ebuild dev stauts easier.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:

From what i see, what you called dev animosity is that someone (dunno, we "users" could do that, and we do mistake, specially with a program named udev like "udev") assign that bug to udev team, as such, team complain about it as it as no relation to udev. That's why dev told you if you need any udev related change, ring them, else it's not their task.

[snip]

now it is in kernel&hardware and even more, made sticky, that's a silent move to help you and another sign that fork isn't considered as bad as you think.

Thanks for the response krinn. What you said makes sense, and the word I used 'animosity' should probably be retracted, I admit that was emotional and wasn't thought out well enough. I agree with what you said above, but yes the name really needs to be changed. I do hope the /usr merge does not happen, it's so pointless and only creates problems. An interesting rant on the kernel mailing list -> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=134931225309449&w=2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jubei-Mitsuyoshi
n00b
n00b


Joined: 05 Sep 2012
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi have rebuilt most of Archlinux against udev-fork

i am currently running a full cinnamon system ontop of it, EVERYTHING works perfectly, i have removed all traces of systemd from over 60 packages, all thanks to udev-fork ( and gentoo patches, and ebuilds which are the greatest resource any packager can ever draw upon ). I hope other distros take notice of what can be achieved in this direction.
And a public thank you to the gentoo community for the patches and techniques borrowed from ebuilds, without those it would be bloody impossible to build jack shit !

edit....... i no longer have anything to do with Archlinux, hence have removed the repo locations..


Last edited by Jubei-Mitsuyoshi on Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2246
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting exchange from the link, hcaulfield57.

I've stuck with running udev-171-r6.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gerard82
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 2215
Location: Netherlands

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303
Gerard.
_________________
To install Gentoo I use sysrescuecd.Based on Gentoo,has firefox to browse Gentoo docs and mc to browse (and edit) files.
The same disk can be used for 32 and 64 bit installs.
You can follow the Handbook verbatim.
http://www.sysresccd.org/Download
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:

I've stuck with running udev-171-r6.

As far as I am aware, Gentoo is going to maintain 171 indefinitely. Unless I am mistaken about this.

EDIT: Well it will be interesting to see what happens with this on LKML.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2246
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it comes down to it, I can remove udev completely.
I'm old school as far as unix/linux and X so it wouldn't be a big deal to go that way.
It's a great convenience, but not an absolute necessity.

This whole udev fiasco reminds me of the total brouhaha over "hal",
which if I remember right, Kay was involved in that cluster f**k also.

Time marches on ;)
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
If it comes down to it, I can remove udev completely.
I'm old school as far as unix/linux and X so it wouldn't be a big deal to go that way.
It's a great convenience, but not an absolute necessity.

I could remove udev completely as well, in fact mdev or static /dev both work perfectly fine for my setup. The only thing that really depends on udev is auto-mounted volumes and what not in most DEs and LVM as far as I am aware. But it would be nice if people who have to use udev have an opportunity to not drag in all of GNOME with udev.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4151

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
This whole udev fiasco reminds me of the total brouhaha over "hal",
which if I remember right, Kay was involved in that cluster f**k also.


And lennart is never far -> ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2246
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hcaulfield57 wrote:
Anon-E-moose wrote:
If it comes down to it, I can remove udev completely.
I'm old school as far as unix/linux and X so it wouldn't be a big deal to go that way.
It's a great convenience, but not an absolute necessity.

I could remove udev completely as well, in fact mdev or static /dev both work perfectly fine for my setup. The only thing that really depends on udev is auto-mounted volumes and what not in most DEs and LVM as far as I am aware. But it would be nice if people who have to use udev have an opportunity to not drag in all of GNOME with udev.


I removed almost all traces of gnome a while back, the only parts left don't pull in gconf, etc.
I refuse to use anything that pulls in tons of gnome dependencies, even if it cause me to use another package or do without.
This is just my personal preference. For those that like/use gnome more power to them.
Linux/unix has always been about choice.

These are the only gnome packages that I still have left:
gnome-base/libglade
gnome-base/librsvg
x11-libs/gnome-pty-helper
x11-themes/gnome-icon-theme

and though they are "gnome" they're minor things.

I also don't do auto-mount on devices, except for my normal disks.
I don't even boot into a graphics screen preferring the regular console and doing startx.
But that's me.

I'm glad to see the fork happening, and with a little perseverance I think that others will start seeing the need/desire for it.

Edit to add:
For those that use udev and want to have another option, then make a tar file of the dev directory as udev sees it.
Then you have as least the basis for getting a system running without udev.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.9.1-zen, glibc-2.17, gcc-4.7.3-r1, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:

I also don't do auto-mount on devices, except for my normal disks.
I don't even boot into a graphics screen preferring the regular console and doing startx.
But that's me.

Yea, that setup sounds very similar to mine, my only graphical programs are firefox and zathura (for pdf). I tend to prefer minimalism with the software I use, hence why I like mdev so much. But I suppose this is greatly off topic :)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2410
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

grey_dot wrote:
Hey, check out udev-init-scripts in udev overlay. Consus has moved udev path to /etc/conf.d/udev, so you can adjust it when needed without actually editing init script. Thats the best idea we have for now. Suggestions are welcome :)

That's what the linked scripts do too, but in order to actually use the parameter, udev initscripts must also be patched to do something with it. In our case, when initramfs is set to "no", udev sets its dependencies up for start after localmount (and thus needs to change runlevel.) If you want to know what I'm on about, just look at the patches (they're right there in the post itself.)

So yeah, the end-user only tweaks a setting the in conf.d file (but must also know to change runlevels when switching the setting.)

Wait, when you say "moved udev path to /etc/conf.d/udev" do you mean /etc/init.d/udev is now /etc/conf.d/udev? Because I don't want that at all.

I'm happy to wait for khayyam to integrate our changes, and for the package to be renamed. While fulfilling the virtual would be great, it won't happen until Gentoo officially makes it happen, so I'd be happy to use package.provided instead.

I'm not sure soname-renaming is such a great idea, personally, if (and only if) the same ABI is being provided. If it is, or will potentially be, a different ABI, (ie not all of the same functions are provided, or different parameters are used, or exposed structs are a different size) then, yeah, it would be better to have different sonames. But, I'd then question why that was the case: doesn't it ruin the whole point of the project?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hcaulfield57
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome, looks like this will be added to portage. Great work grey_dot and consus!

EDIT: Link for those interested -> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=437570#c15


Last edited by hcaulfield57 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Page 8 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum