Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
udev is doomed
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

krinn wrote:
ssuominen wrote:
NeddySeagoon wrote:
The Gentoo udev maintainer in Gentoo has stated he will no longer maintain udev when that time comes.


Where are you getting this? I've consitently said the next step will be a patchset, if required.


You are doing just like LP, saying one thing and its contrary next.
Let me help your memory : https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7507512.html#7507512
ssuominen wrote:
I'll stop maintaining sys-fs/udev if sys-apps/systemd becomes the default

So if systemd is the default, you'll stop maintaining udev leaving every non-systemd users dead. And this could happen even before udev outside of systemd is no more support.

So keep spreading your lies and FUD on everyone, but don't touch NeddySeagoon ; punk.
(the usage of punk is an attempt to introduce some humour to calm things down ala aCOSwt style ; my next attempt would be add "Don't touch NeddySeagoon" as first CoC entry)


Now you are referencing out of context comment. I don't know if you did that in purpose, or not, but if you did it on purpose, it was a sneaky way of getting me explain it all over again.

You know, you can have sys-apps/systemd installed, and the udev from it, while still boot with sys-apps/openrc. So, if the order of virtual/udev would change in a way sys-apps/systemd would be moved in as a first provider, it would mean sys-apps/systemd would become part of Stage 3.
And nobody is dicussing about systemd becoming the default here, it hasn't even been a /topic in the mailing list, but such a move would require the current ebuild content of sys-fs/udev, the functionality of it, be moved to sys-apps/systemd.
As in, the current sys-apps/systemd would need to transform to a somekind of hybrid ebuild that would serve the purpose of current sys-fs/udev while taking nothing away from users of sys-apps/openrc.
That would mean me joining the current systemd team, to maintain the non-systemd aspect of it, the same content I'm maintaining in sys-fs/udev right now.

I should have been more clear in the post you referenced, to avoid this kind of abuse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
krinn
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 4816

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:

I should have been more clear in the post you referenced, to avoid this kind of abuse.

Well, i wouldn't have use the "abuse" word, but "mistake" ; maybe my english is not good enough to catch all subtleties of the language. But that one for me suppose some malicious usage, while the other a misunderstanding. Don't assume we're all evils, and even if, don't assume we're always :)
Anyway i'm glad you see everyone could had misunderstood what you said ; and that the troll tag wasn't well put then.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2965

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
NeddySeagoon wrote:
udev is clearly 'end of life' - the time to be evaluating alternatives in now, unless you want to have your choice removed when udev finally vanishes into systemd.

FUD ... Who said this about udev?

ssuominen wrote:
NeddySeagoon wrote:
udev is clearly 'end of life' - the time to be evaluating alternatives in now, unless you want to have your choice removed when udev finally vanishes into systemd.

Untrue. What's your religious agenda for driving such misinformation?

ulenrich, ssuominen ... well, Lennart has said as much so I don't think Neddy is in the realms of FUD and/or propagating a "religious agenda" (whatever that might mean).

Lennart Poetrering wrote:
Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development.

Also, can you both please refrain from using inappropriate terminology (such as "religious" and "church") there is nothing inherently "religious" about a "position" and no "dogma" (in its original meaning of "church law") involved. Such use of language can only be an act of detraction, and serves only to paint the opposition as "irrational" (as the connotation of "religious" is that it is indefensible by "normal" reasoning).

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2639
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
Also, can you both please refrain from using inappropriate terminology (such as "religious" and "church") there is nothing inherently "religious" about a "position"


Those types of terms are usually thrown out as a type of flamebait,
and usually for the reason of trolling for further heated responses.

I know that you know this khayyam, I'm only responding to let those
doing it know that we understand that also.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.19, gcc-4.9.2, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naib
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 4476
Location: Removed by Neddy

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAve a read of this...

https://plus.google.com/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/62avVTyYxaY

Quote:
Samuli Suominen


To clarify. I'm the maintainer for sys-fs/udev which is unpatched udev built out from systemd source tree and that's the Gentoo's default.
So remember when talking about "Gentoo's udev", it does NOT mean the separate sys-fs/eudev project which isn't default nor going to be.
Nobody can stop developers from creating their own projects and maintaining ebuilds for them in the Portage tree, but that does NOT
make it anyway official.
It has not even been a topic to make sys-fs/eudev the default, and I have no plans on stopping maintenance of sys-fs/udev which is orig. udev from systemd tree, but I also hope systemd developers don't make my life any harder so I can keep on carrying patch free version.

Thanks for all the work!


Quote:
Rich Freeman


+Samuli Suominen And thank your for maintaining udev!

Gentoo really embraces the concept of "rogue projects" or whatever you want to call them. Any dev is welcome to fork/compete/etc with anything in the tree and we really only do top-down policy when it is necessary due to avoidable blockage/etc. You can run Gentoo Prefix under OSX (or even windows), we have a bunch of minor arch ports, we have BSD, and we have multiple init/udev/etc options (including some who have made busybox mdev an option for simple systems). We don't favor any particular DE, X11 implementation, database, and so on. The default install doesn't even bundle a syslog or cron - you pick what you want.

Obviously with the vertical integration your ability to mix/match is going to be more limited with Gnome/etc these days. However, we support what we can when it makes sense. We don't prevent projects like Gnome from depending on systemd either.

So, when you hear about Gentoo doing this or that, it often means just one more option. There is some effort to make Gentoo work without openrc installed at all, and some interest in providing stage3s with systemd as a default. That said, I doubt openrc is going anywhere either. The vast majority of daemons in the tree now support both - certainly all the big-name projects do.

For those who want to run/maintain eudev, more power to them. Gentoo isn't really about finding the one true way of doing things. As long as somebody is willing to do the work, we try to support just about everything.


Now I don't like how SysD (and RH) went about what it did to put it in a position to dictate in the way it does the userland of Linux (RH can't control the kernel ;) ) But it has. Now people can either throw vitriol and not get anywhere OR aspects of the linux community need to embrace Sysd more to pull control away from Pottering (since that is where I see the problem) and leave those that do not want to to continue.

Best thing is some common init interface/api so projects/distro's don't have to hand craft.
_________________
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2639
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Gentoo isn't really about finding the one true way of doing things. As long as somebody is willing to do the work, we try to support just about everything.


That is certainly a valid way to look at it.
Obviously not all devs and users feel this way re. the one true way
and thus the reason that many of these discussions turn so toxic.

I don't care what anyone else wants to use, kernel, infrastructure, DE/WM, etc.
All I want is for those things that have been working in the past to continue to do so
and not be removed simply to further someones idea of what everyone else should do, ie one true way.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.19, gcc-4.9.2, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2639
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as eudev, it was a fork of udev, when the systemd people took over maintainership and control of it.

I think that people feared from things LP had said that it would either disappear
or be gutted and made useless as some type of lead in to only use systemd.

And since then many of the changes to udev have been simply to make it easier
to use with systemd, so they were more or less right in their fears.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.19, gcc-4.9.2, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
broken_chaos
Guru
Guru


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 370
Location: Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
If I'm wrong, please let me know, I really haven't been following that fork.

I'm not sure, I haven't looked at it aside from a brief glance. I put 'old-style' in quotation marks because, from what I understood, the major (functional) changes were largely or exclusively to do with keeping files where they were (such as udevd where it was, named what it was named), rather than moving them around according to upstream defaults changes.

Better? Worse? I can't really say. If someone was relying on udevd being where udevd has been for years, then having it moved and then the symlink removed (which seems the intent in sys-fs/udev from recent commits?) may be a nasty surprise if they don't follow udev's ebuild too closely.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

broken_chaos wrote:
ssuominen wrote:
If I'm wrong, please let me know, I really haven't been following that fork.

I'm not sure, I haven't looked at it aside from a brief glance. I put 'old-style' in quotation marks because, from what I understood, the major (functional) changes were largely or exclusively to do with keeping files where they were (such as udevd where it was, named what it was named), rather than moving them around according to upstream defaults changes.

Better? Worse? I can't really say. If someone was relying on udevd being where udevd has been for years, then having it moved and then the symlink removed (which seems the intent in sys-fs/udev from recent commits?) may be a nasty surprise if they don't follow udev's ebuild too closely.


The move was not done lightheartedly. All kinds of steps were done before it. To name some,

Nothing in Portage is calling the udevd binary directly except the service managers init script, like /etc/init.d/udev (to my bestknowledge)

The udev-init-scripts has supported the location /lib/systemd/systemd-udevd for a multiple releases already.

The news item was announced which contained:

Quote:

Title: Upgrade to >=sys-fs/udev-210
Author: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>

[ .. cut .. snip .. catsnip .. ]

Since both the systemd-udevd executable and the network configuration is stored
at /lib/systemd, using a too wide INSTALL_MASK would be a mistake.


Plus since there is now a new .link file for network setup, the initramfs tools all need to upgrade for it, so if any of them still needs adjusting for the udevd executable, it can be done in parallel to adding the missing .link file.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
Lennart Poetrering wrote:
Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development.


ConsoleKit is mature, and while no new features are developed, it does work well, plus while original maintainers left it, the last release 0.4.6 is from git by Debian and Gentoo (me) developers to be compatible
with current udev, not more than half an year ago:

See for yourself, http://cgit.freedesktop.org/ConsoleKit/

The only thing I'm remotely worried is that if PolicyKit will remove ConsoleKit support entirely in favour of systemd-logind. In such a case, I have backup plan to go back to vendor based PolicyKit .rules for 'storage', 'network', 'power' (as in, old-style plugdev group in split) so no logind will be required in anycase.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3826
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naib wrote:
Now I don't like how SysD (and RH) went about what it did to put it in a position to dictate in the way it does the userland of Linux (RH can't control the kernel ;) ) But it has.

Actually it's fairly easy to push a direction in-kernel, given enough paid employees. Right now we have the prospect of a single-app kdbus, when a more general facility would be more useful and in fact simpler to code, and further the cgroup api is going to be hobbled as well, in the name of "control." The thinking for the latter is plain confused: we don't expose it to userspace, so we shouldn't expose it to root.

Quote:
Now people can either throw vitriol and not get anywhere OR aspects of the linux community need to embrace Sysd more to pull control away from Pottering

Those are the two choices? I decline.

Since this is free software, and since we compile everything from source on Gentoo, we can patch stuff how we want. And in this case it's not so hard: the old mechanisms are used to bring up the new. In essence the new "innovations" rely on the "traditional" setup to function. An example of this is how you can run udev/split-usr without an initramfs, in all the circumstances where you never needed an initrd before. Essentially where you don't need userspace to access your root partition.

Simply put this is because the problems of early init are the same in both cases, whether you have an initramfs root to start, or you just use your normal rootfs. udev can be started after a delay, or you wouldn't be able to use usr over the network, and always has to cope with events that have happened before it started (which is why there's a mechanism for it.) That will never change.

Quote:
Best thing is some common init interface/api so projects/distro's don't have to hand craft.

The trouble with that is everyone seems to think the systemd apis are required, typically because there's been communication between commercial developers in the background. And that upstream are frankly terrible at not breaking their consumers, as well as consistently refusing efforts to make it easier to collaborate on exactly that.

It will happen in time: it's just a shame it'll go through such a messy process to get there. A bit like C++ taking 30 years to reinvent LISP (badly, ofc;) the Linux userland appears to stumble around relearning all the reasons why certain principles exist, instead of just starting from those principles and moving forward.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveL
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 3826
Location: The Peanut Gallery

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Lennart Poetrering wrote:
Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development.


ConsoleKit is mature.. blahblah

You're completely ignoring his point which was about udev, and in answer to your completely unfounded accusation that NeddySeagoon is spreading religious misinformation.

He's the last person anyone could call a "troll" but you managed it. Well done.

Good on you if you manage to keep things running without logind though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2965

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Lennart Poetrering wrote:
Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development.

ConsoleKit is mature [...]

ssuominen ... what has this to do with your accusation of neddy's "religious agenda" with regard to "udev is clearly 'end of life' [...]" statement? One can only say *nothing* ... your shifting the goal posts and responding selectively to a (entirely unrelated) "word" rather than the point at hand. The section of the quote in bold clearly validates neddy's statement, and leaves your accusation as little but an attempt at a slur ... so answer, what "religious agenda"? ... or just do the decent thing and apologise.

best ... khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 33755
Location: 56N 3W

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Team,

We can all read the web and reach our own conclusions from what we read.

None of us have any facts on which to base our opinions of the demise of udev, Its not dead yet.
The basis of udev life expectancy opinion forming is the forecasts of others, mixed with the experience and predudices of the individuals forming the opinions.
Little wonder there is such a diversity of opinion.

Anyway, I've shared my opinion. Based on my opinion, Gentoo users will fall into three groups when (if LP makes good his forecast) udev can no longer be untangled from systemd

1) Those who embrace systemd early on (whatever their motives)
2) Those who leave it too late to test alternatives and get sucked in at the last minute.
3) Those who put some effort into testing alternatives before the decision point is reached.

This is my opinion - you can't have it because its mine but you are welcome to share it if you want. If you don't want, thats fine too.
_________________
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
Aiken
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 22 Jan 2003
Posts: 152
Location: Toowoomba/Australia

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:

None of us have any facts on which to base our opinions of the demise of udev, Its not dead yet.


The problem is Pottering's statement seeing udev on a non systemd system as a dead end. That statement alone is enough to have people wondering what will happen.

Ignoring systemd, udev is losing me just on it breaking things wanting to rename network interfaces. The 1st way I knew about was setting the file in /etc/udev/rules.d/ so went around the machines I look after and set that to keep (for me at least) the very predicable kernel names and now with the update to udev 210 that will be broken and would have to go around those machines again to stop udev from breaking networking again.

As an interim solution I now have udev in my local overlay and using pkg_postinst() to delete the offending rules file.
_________________
Beware the grue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony0945
Guru
Guru


Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You know, you can have sys-apps/systemd installed, and the udev from it, while still boot with sys-apps/openrc. So, if the order of virtual/udev would change in a way sys-apps/systemd would be moved in as a first provider, it would mean sys-apps/systemd would become part of Stage 3.


So you will have to install software that you will never run in order to boot? That is so disgustingly Redmondesque!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1248
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@kazam, its not polite to tell others what to do, you should do the decent thing and say you're sorry to ssuominen.

some of udev's stuff's going in kernel from what the systemd people said. udev is doomed via migrating into the kernel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1272

PostPosted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khayyam wrote:
ssuominen wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Lennart Poetrering wrote:
Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development.

ConsoleKit is mature [...]

ssuominen ... what has this to do with your accusation of neddy's "religious agenda" with regard to "udev is clearly 'end of life' [...]" statement? One can only say *nothing* ... your shifting the goal posts and responding selectively to a (entirely unrelated) "word" rather than the point at hand. The section of the quote in bold clearly validates neddy's statement, and leaves your accusation as little but an attempt at a slur ... so answer, what "religious agenda"? ... or just do the decent thing and apologise.

best ... khay

If one has to apologise it is me: It is me who recognized
a new Anti-LP church is actively developed.

Non believers know
- kernel.org will not let die udev
- if LP mangles udev deeper into systemd, still the linux kernel will have an interface

You know the real daemon is in the kernel, udev is not more than a configuration language with a tool to issue a sync.
All other information is FUD to propagate your new Anti-LP religion.
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khayyam
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 2965

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

666threesixes666 wrote:
@kazam, its not polite to tell others what to do, you should do the decent thing and say you're sorry to ssuominen.

below my current threshhold ... but if I see kazam, I'll be sure to pass your message on.

ulenrich wrote:
If one has to apologise it is me: It is me who recognized a new Anti-LP church is actively developed.

You seem to want to suggest that a quotation is somehow *proof* of your "new church" ... but OK, you should apologise, not for being so brilliantly analytical as to have detected this "new" finggy, but for being so completely incapable of logical reasoning.

ulenrich wrote:
[...]FUD to propagate your new Anti-LP religion.

I see, you might do us all a favour and remind everyone where I posted said FUD ... but of course you can't. So far you have accused NeddySeagoon of "FUD", for which you also offer no proof, and as I provided a counter argument in the form of a quote by Lennart you are now accusing me of "FUD" ... thats really a *non-argument* ... if you want to engage in discussion (something I seriously doubt) you need to offer more than your witches on broomsticks.

khay
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NeddySeagoon wrote:
Team,

We can all read the web and reach our own conclusions from what we read.

None of us have any facts on which to base our opinions of the demise of udev, Its not dead yet.
The basis of udev life expectancy opinion forming is the forecasts of others, mixed with the experience and predudices of the individuals forming the opinions.
Little wonder there is such a diversity of opinion.

Anyway, I've shared my opinion. Based on my opinion, Gentoo users will fall into three groups when (if LP makes good his forecast) udev can no longer be untangled from systemd

1) Those who embrace systemd early on (whatever their motives)
2) Those who leave it too late to test alternatives and get sucked in at the last minute.
3) Those who put some effort into testing alternatives before the decision point is reached.

This is my opinion - you can't have it because its mine but you are welcome to share it if you want. If you don't want, thats fine too.


Thanks for clearing this. I apolize for using stupid word like 'religious' when I asked about your agenda earlier. The problem was it didn't come out as an opinion earlier, it came out as it you were listing facts.
Please, try to be careful, there are some really malicious people who take any opportunity to twist our words into something they are not. I never wanted to believe you were one of them, since I've seen you
nothing but help people over the years in forums.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
khayyam wrote:
ssuominen wrote:
khayyam wrote:
Lennart Poetrering wrote:
Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development.

ConsoleKit is mature [...]

ssuominen ... what has this to do with your accusation of neddy's "religious agenda" with regard to "udev is clearly 'end of life' [...]" statement? One can only say *nothing* ... your shifting the goal posts and responding selectively to a (entirely unrelated) "word" rather than the point at hand. The section of the quote in bold clearly validates neddy's statement, and leaves your accusation as little but an attempt at a slur ... so answer, what "religious agenda"? ... or just do the decent thing and apologise.

best ... khay

If one has to apologise it is me: It is me who recognized
a new Anti-LP church is actively developed.

Non believers know
- kernel.org will not let die udev
- if LP mangles udev deeper into systemd, still the linux kernel will have an interface

You know the real daemon is in the kernel, udev is not more than a configuration language with a tool to issue a sync.
All other information is FUD to propagate your new Anti-LP religion.


We both know this is true, but let's try to avoid esclation of words. It's counter effective. I found sticking to technical facts or ignoring is the best way to stfu people talking nonsense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony0945 wrote:
Quote:
You know, you can have sys-apps/systemd installed, and the udev from it, while still boot with sys-apps/openrc. So, if the order of virtual/udev would change in a way sys-apps/systemd would be moved in as a first provider, it would mean sys-apps/systemd would become part of Stage 3.


So you will have to install software that you will never run in order to boot? That is so disgustingly Redmondesque!


No, let me clear it futher, when I talked about the ebuild content being moved over, I meant something like IUSE="+systemd" being introduced to sys-apps/systemd, so that USE="-systemd" install of sys-apps/systemd would produce
a filelist, more or less identical to the one now in sys-fs/udev.

It's just a case of 'if' and 'else' combined with USE.

But seriously, it hasn't even been a topic, it's pure speculation. It's nothing to worry at this time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roki942
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 176
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:

All other information is FUD to propagate your new Anti-LP religion.


OMG ..... have we lived to see the 2nd coming? :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2639
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

roki942 wrote:
ulenrich wrote:

All other information is FUD to propagate your new Anti-LP religion.


OMG ..... have we lived to see the 2nd coming? :roll:


Watch it roki942, you'll be called a nazi next. :roll:
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.19, gcc-4.9.2, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
desultory
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 04 Nov 2005
Posts: 8292

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This topic has narrowly avoided locking enough times already.

Locked.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
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