[gentoo-dev] last rite: media-sound/jackbeat
# Miroslav Šulc (2020-08-08) # Last release in 2010. # Removal in 30 days. bug #736300 media-sound/jackbeat
[gentoo-dev] last rite: media-sound/specimen
# Miroslav Šulc (2020-08-08) # Last release in 2007, HOMEPAGE dead. # Removal in 30 days. bug #736322 media-sound/specimen
[gentoo-dev] last rite: media-sound/tapiir
# Miroslav Šulc (2020-08-08) # HOMEPAGE dead. # Removal in 30 days. bug #736326 media-sound/tapiir
[gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
All, I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new systems from eudev to udev. This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked, this applies to non-glibc configurations). What do people think? Thanks, William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new > systems from eudev to udev. Well... maybe you could somewhat expand on the why? -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote: > All, > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on > new > systems from eudev to udev. > > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I > checked, > this applies to non-glibc configurations). > > What do people think? > > Thanks, > > William > > William, With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from systemd, its not something to be done lightly. That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. We had this discussion several years ago when the default became eudev. What's changed? -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods arm64 pgpb6AvBiQ28_.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote: > > All, > > > > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on > > new > > systems from eudev to udev. > > > > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since > > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at > > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I > > checked, > > this applies to non-glibc configurations). > > > > What do people think? > > > > Thanks, > > > > William > > > > > > William, > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system, and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles. Udev runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev is necessary for most of Gentoo. > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. > > We had this discussion several years ago when the default became > eudev. What's changed? If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not a case for it being the default. Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: >> On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on >>> new >>> systems from eudev to udev. >>> >>> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since >>> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at >>> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I >>> checked, >>> this applies to non-glibc configurations). >>> >>> What do people think? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> William >>> >>> >> >> William, >> >> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from >> systemd, its not something to be done lightly. >> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system, > and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles. > Udev runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev > is necessary for most of Gentoo. It actually works is enough reason for me. Was forced to migrate a bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations. Mostly on systems with LVM. I'm completely against the proposal. >> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road >> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. >> >> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became >> eudev. What's changed? > > If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would > need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not > a case for it being the default. Other than that it works and the systemd version does not. Might be configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running commands as simple as "lvs". eudev in coparison just works. > > Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one > person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default. Yes, this is a problem. Kind Regards, Jaco -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3 7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg== =rF5/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:38:36PM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi, > > On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > >> On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote: > >>> All, > >>> > >>> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on > >>> new > >>> systems from eudev to udev. > >>> > >>> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since > >>> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at > >>> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I > >>> checked, > >>> this applies to non-glibc configurations). > >>> > >>> What do people think? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> William > >>> > >>> > >> > >> William, > >> > >> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > >> systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > >> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > > > Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system, > > and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles. > > Udev runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev > > is necessary for most of Gentoo. > > It actually works is enough reason for me. Was forced to migrate a > bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because > systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in > lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations. > Mostly on systems with LVM. I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites for eudev, just making it the default for new installs. > I'm completely against the proposal. > > >> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road > >> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. > >> > >> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became > >> eudev. What's changed? > > > > If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would > > need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not > > a case for it being the default. > > Other than that it works and the systemd version does not. Might be > configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev > configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running > commands as simple as "lvs". eudev in coparison just works. I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible configuration dependence. When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup? William > > > > Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one > > person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default. > > Yes, this is a problem. > > Kind Regards, > Jaco > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3 > 7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ > u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa > Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb > IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W > c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY > G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg== > =rF5/ > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason to base the decision on. IMO it was paranoid years ago when people first brought it up. Now it is even moreso considering that years have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed. If their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use (e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least they would still be talking about it. William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things? Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they intentionally don't want to accept)? I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other differences. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It actually works is enough reason for me. Was forced to migrate a
> bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
> systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
> lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations.
> Mostly on systems with LVM.
>
> > I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this
> > proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites
> > for eudev, just making it the default for new installs.
It would affect new installations. But yes, we can switch it back to
eudev post install.
>
> I'm completely against the proposal.
>
> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
>
> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
> eudev. What's changed?
> >>>
> >>> If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> >>> need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> >>> a case for it being the default.
>
> Other than that it works and the systemd version does not. Might be
> configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
> configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
> commands as simple as "lvs". eudev in coparison just works.
>
> > I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible
> > configuration dependence.
Ok, simplest mechanism we've found:
Install a system with at least one LV partition and leave some space
available in the VG, then do:
term 1: watch lvs
term 2: while true; do lvcreate -L1G -s -ntemp_snap /dev/${vg}/${lv} &&
lvremove /dev/${vg}/temp_snap; done
Give it anywhere from two two five minutes. Can be hours sometimes.
But eventually it does die. Can't say the same for eudev.
>
> > When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup?
In some cases rebooting is the only way to recover.
Kind Regards,
Jaco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vJyEACgkQCC3Esa/3
7p4eewf/bOXgnx4n30HUZnTmvhyjC4F2MTc8bOwYj45t+UMeGoIN8C+GMHxWMGvG
NQpoK2hkY8egykCbuO4rSBwV9YS/naAiAZEcEXCPdcAUgV2FxJSGWKCLDLfTiflg
vXCLpd8ybxVbVhEO5XU8K4jTc9fc4peY/4ZVK0Lhl80rzWLf/yrc9+IurBZE+0g0
GXpHxNa6e2AZWPFyNXMu83fatlyOZpy/WXE7owb+yLPwTJPs30W9OLFQ6lWXSLdx
FGyLBh8vFn9BExF3IS1ZgKYIBRrH45AazMNV3+fvO+aZX/6UfXDID/JDjXHdq3bl
awMSVX40kYbgskCkOwf5DreCrs7nBw==
=ROIf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford > wrote: > > > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the > road > > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. > > So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact > any of my Gentoo hosts either way, .. [snip] > > -- > Rich > Rich, I don't have a dog in this fight. Being old and cynical, I have static /dev, so I use neither. I'm interested in what's changed since the Council decision [1] to make eudev the default. [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/573922#c28 -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods arm64 pgp8OZnGNadvH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:48 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford > > wrote: > > > > > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > > > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > > > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > > > > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the > > road > > > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. > > > > So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact > > any of my Gentoo hosts either way, .. > > I don't have a dog in this fight. Being old and cynical, I have static /dev, > so I use neither. > > I'm interested in what's changed since the Council decision [1] to make > eudev the default. > And you'll note that this is the one line in your post I didn't quote, because it was about the only thing that you said which made sense. I wasn't in any way criticizing that point, and basically asked the same question myself. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
Hi Rich, On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 06:22:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford wrote: > > > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. > > > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road > > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd. > > So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact > any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason > to base the decision on. IMO it was paranoid years ago when people > first brought it up. Now it is even moreso considering that years > have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed. If > their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to > mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use > (e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least > they would still be talking about it. I couldn't agree with you more on this point. I think if they were going to make udev impossible to use without systemd they would have gotten around to that by now. And, yes, the fear of this was the primary reason for the switch when the council voted to change it. > William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things? > Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and > generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they > intentionally don't want to accept)? It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago, and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev. > I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the > two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of > were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default > persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not > made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other > differences. The only other one I know of is if you aren't using glibc udev will not compile, but I'm not even sure that is an issue still. The way I see it, we switched away from udev because of a fear that never materialized, and I'm not convinced that we have enough time to keep it in feature parity with udev which it needs to be to be the default provider. I am going to echo again. I am not talking about removing eudev from the tree, so you would be able to use it if you want. I'm just suggesting that we should start new systems out with udev. William signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 21:17 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote: > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from > systemd, its not something to be done lightly. > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary. Really? And I've thought that the primary reason was that udev upstream has removed the 'repeatedly bash the rules until they succeed' feature that required people to actually fix things. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
