On 02/08/2016 10:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulled
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> Ohey,
>>
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>>
>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
>> For existing installs
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:31:28 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
> > Ohey,
> >
> > I've opened a bug at:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
> >
> > The idea here is to change the order of the providers of
> > virtual/udev. For existi
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev i
On 02/17/2016 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by
>> sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was
>> obvious.
>
> About the only "system-breaking"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/17/2016 04:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> If Lennart's single statement from 2014 is a reason to use eudev
> instead of systemd-udevd, my statement from today is a more
> important reason not to use eudev.
>
That's kind of a fal
Michał Górny schrieb:
systemd and udev share the same codebase. You can no longer build udev
without systemd. udev is only a sub-project of systemd now, hence the
name "systemd-udevd".
Of course, sure. But since you seem not to be able to understand
basics: this *does not* mean Lennart is the o
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> This is something that I think many of us who had systems broken by
> sys-fs/udev multiple times before sys-fs/eudev was an option thought was
> obvious.
About the only "system-breaking" change I'm aware of in udev over the
years was the ch
On 02/17/2016 11:16 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Michał Górny schrieb:
With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of
systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev.
>>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:38:05 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> >> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of
> >> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev.
> > He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split
On 02/17/2016 09:54 AM, brettrse...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Kohler
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:01:32
> To:
> Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changi
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Ben Kohler
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 08:01:32
To:
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:41 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on
>>> Gentoo. systemd-udev does not
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Ben Kohler wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>>
>> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on
>> Gentoo. systemd-udev does not. Consequently, eudev has avoided the system
>> boot breaking regr
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
> eudev has every commit scrutinized by people who care about using it on
> Gentoo. systemd-udev does not. Consequently, eudev has avoided the system
> boot breaking regressions that prompted its creation. That is a good reason
> to make it
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Ben Kohler wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for
>> virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically everyone on the
>> list thinks eudev is th
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
> I have no idea why we are even discussing the choice of default for
> virtual/udev to have subdiscussions about kdbus. Practically everyone on
> the list thinks eudev is the best choice.
>
I think a lot of us appreciate that eudev exists a
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:52 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:00:27 -0500
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile
>> wrote:
what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo develope
On 17/02/16 13:38, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
>>> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of
>>> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev.
>> He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd
>> cod
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>>> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100
>>> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>>>
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
>>
Michał Górny schrieb:
With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of
systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev.
He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd
codebase which has specific maintainers.
systemd and udev share the s
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:09:57 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together
> >> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original):
> >>
> >> "we will not support the udev-on-
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
>>> On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
>>> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>>>
Ohey,
I've opened a bug at:
https://bugs.ge
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao napisał(a):
>>> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile
>> wrote:
what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but
Michał Górny schrieb:
In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together
with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original):
"we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options:
a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 13:58:51 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500
> Richard Yao wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100
> > > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alexis Ba
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>>
>> If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the
>> logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what
>> the Linux ecosystem will be using
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:53:22 -0500
Richard Yao wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100
> > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >
> >> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything
> On Feb 17, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using
> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} wil
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:41:33 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> >>> If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using
> >>> kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have
> >>> to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 y
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
> If userbase is what matters to you, then OpenRC+eudev won. It is the
> logical choice for those concerned about userbase because that is what
> the Linux ecosystem will be using going forward.
>
Uh, if we cared solely about userbase we'd be
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:00:27 -0500
Richard Yao wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile
> wrote:
> >>
> >> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also
> >> work on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros
Dnia 17 lutego 2016 05:00:27 CET, Richard Yao napisał(a):
>On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile
> wrote:
>>>
>>> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also
>work
>>> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use
Dnia 17 lutego 2016 09:17:37 CET, Patrick Lauer napisał(a):
>On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
> * Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there
>won't be
> any user-visible changes
>
> * udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without
>syst
On 02/17/2016 07:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
* Both udev and eudev have pretty much feature parity, so there won't be
any user-visible changes
* udev upstream strongly discourages standalone udev (without systemd)
since at least 2012
(see for example:
https:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:54:31 -0500
Richard Yao wrote:
> On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
> > Patrick Lauer wrote:
> >
> >> Ohey,
> >>
> >> I've opened a bug at:
> >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
> >>
> >> The idea here is to c
On 02/08/2016 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile
wrote:
>>
>> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work
>> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use.
>>
>> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well a
On 02/08/2016 07:46 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:08:22 +0100
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
>> Ohey,
>>
>> I've opened a bug at:
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>>
>> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
>> For existing installs thi
On 02/08/2016 04:08 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Ohey,
>
> I've opened a bug at:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=573922
>
> The idea here is to change the order of the providers of virtual/udev.
> For existing installs this has zero impact.
> For stage3 this would mean that eudev is pulle
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100
> Patrick Lauer wrote:
>
> > On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by
> > > systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and wh
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:16:41 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> > > Because certainly
> > > project that is created plainly for political reasons is better.
> > > Because it will certainly be technically better if people have to
> > > focus on copying regular udev maintainers and reworking their
> > > c
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
If it's just that, it's not limited to udev, but anything using
kdbus/bus1, and would mean openrc/${favorite init system} will have
to do the same thing anyway. But again, almost 2 years is extremely
old considering all the flux that has been around kbus.
OpenRC itself c
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:57:31 +0100
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by
> > systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they
> > made around here.
> You call it hate, I call it
Michał Górny schrieb:
This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by
systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they
made around here.
As you directed this reply at me: If you think that calling out someone for
labeling valid concerns as "pure FUD" is itse
Brian Dolbec schrieb:
Thank you for bringing this information to the forefront of this debate.
So, is it not better for us Gentoo-er's that wish to not install
systemd, to set the default non-systemd udev to eudev.
Note that I am not advocating for or against this move. I was just pointing
ou
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:26:46 -0500
"Anthony G. Basile" wrote:
> On 2/16/16 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer
> > wrote:
> >> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging
> >> squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:09:23 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
> >
> > This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to
> > *running* udev without systemd as opposed to building (which
> > upstream already made impossible
On 2/16/16 3:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging
>> squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other
>> providers will continue being listed and available. The
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
>
> This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to *running* udev
> without systemd as opposed to building (which upstream already made
> impossible).
>
> Here is the exact wording:
> "Unless the systemd-haters prepar
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:33:55 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
[...]
> This all is going into some bickering nonsense and noise made by
> systemd haters just to feed their troll, FUD and whatever else they
> made around here.
>
> So, yes, we should definitely switch to semi-maintained,
> semi-documented
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> The whole discussion, which seems to turn everyone into a raging
> squirrel, is about changing the default provider of a virtual. All other
> providers will continue being listed and available. The change affects
> none of the current userbas
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it
> > require systemd. Quoting Lennart:
> > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and
> > handle activation. T
On 02/16/2016 08:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
>> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
>>> I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require
>>> systemd. Quoting Lennart:
>>> "You need the userspace code to set up t
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 20:14:03 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require
> > systemd. Quoting Lennart:
> > "You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and handle
> > activation. T
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:53:48 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
> > Maybe FUD is the incorrect way to put it, but I think us doing
> > something about it at this point is definitely premature since
> > KDBUS is no where near ready to go -- they were forced to re
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
I also fail to see how udev using a new linux ipc would make it require
systemd. Quoting Lennart:
"You need the userspace code to set up the bus and its policy and handle
activation. That's not a trivial task. For us, that's what sytemd does
in PID 1. You'd need to come up
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:34:20 +0100
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was
> > more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being
> > absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream
William Hubbs schrieb:
Maybe FUD is the incorrect way to put it, but I think us doing > something about it at this point is definitely premature since >
KDBUS is no where near ready to go -- they were forced to retract > it a
while back because they had to re-think the design.
kdbus got sent
Sorry about the messed up quoting, somehow enigmail and format=flowed do
not work well together.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:34:20PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Alexis Ballier schrieb:
> > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more
> > to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by
> > systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upst
Alexis Ballier schrieb:
It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more
to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by
systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at
some point".
Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining sys
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:45:41 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600
> > > William Hubbs wrote:
> > >
> > >> And, as for right now, udev
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> >
> >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can still be
> >> extracted and run standalone fr
On 15 Feb 2016 13:13, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> Also, why, why people using systemd ARE interested in this thread?
> You should not be interested at all.
in case you're directing at me, i do not use systemd anywhere
-mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2016-02-14 21:23 GMT+01:00 Mike Frysinger :
> On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change
> > > > the vir
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600
> William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can still be
>> extracted and run standalone from systemd.
>
> and even with that, I don't think there is anything preven
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 13:10:07 +0100 Patrick Lauer wrote:
>On 02/09/2016 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric
>> wrote:
>>> And a lot of Gentoo is surprisingly simple: Like our use of bash
>>> scripts for recipies to build things, like using rsync to
>>> de
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/15/2016 01:29 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 William Hubbs
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 2/14/16 3:34 P
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as
On 15/02/16 05:28, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote:
>> I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate
>> 'udev'
>
> i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened. i
> don't think it changes my point. -mike
>
It wasn't necessarily a
On 15 Feb 2016 02:31, M. J. Everitt wrote:
> I think people are confusing the fact that there IS no separate 'udev'
i'm fully aware of this fact and have been since it happened.
i don't think it changes my point.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On 15/02/16 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
>>
On 14 Feb 2016 15:56, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
> >>
> >> that's not true, nor is it the cent
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the
> > > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being e
Why does any discussion revolving around systemd always turn out like this?
For the record, I'm an OpenRC user and intend on keeping it that way for
as long as i can. In that case i need udev to keep things working the
way i want them to. So in the case that the systemd team makes udev
inseparable
On 2/14/16 3:47 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
>>
>> that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo.
>
> can you list the projects that uti
On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the
> > runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being executed.
>
> correct and i've been careful with libudev.
>
> anyhow, c
On 14 Feb 2016 15:42, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
>
> that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo.
can you list the projects that utilize eudev ? the repo doesn't that
i can see. it
On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as the
> runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being executed.
> -mike
>
correct and i've been careful with libudev.
anyhow, can we divert this away from udev/eudev. mike
On 2/14/16 3:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
>
that's not true, nor is it the central criticism, imo. the problem is
the project only has one pair of eyes. people have said all sorts of
stuff but really, there's only one relevant issue
On 14 Feb 2016 21:31, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> If, for any reason, eudev should b
On 14 Feb 2016 22:31, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and
> > develops against.
> >
> > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
>
> I honestly don't understand this argu
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> Systemd users/developers should not mind what the default is as they
> are forced to use one variant anyway, these users/developers should
> not force their opinion upon others.
Posting an opinion on a list isn't forcing anything on anybody.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 02/14/2016 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500
>>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer
wrote:
> I
On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change
the virtual bac
On 14 February 2016 at 22:23, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and
> develops against.
>
> eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it.
I honestly don't understand this argument that pops over and over.
No "major distro" using
On 02/14/2016 09:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer
>>> wrote:
If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just chang
On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change
> > > the virtual back. One-line change.
> >
> > Which is precise
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer
>> wrote:
>> > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change
>> > the virtual back. One-line change.
>>
>> Whi
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer
> wrote:
> > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change
> > the virtual back. One-line change.
>
> Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching t
On 02/14/2016 05:00 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
>> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the
>> virtual back. One-line change.
> Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the
> default to eudev
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change the
> virtual back. One-line change.
Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the
default to eudev in the first place.
--
Rich
On 02/09/2016 10:03 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 9 February 2016 at 18:27, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo
>> community. outside of this community i get praise.
>
> In case my earlier messages stating a desire to exercise much caution
On 02/09/2016 01:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>
>> And a lot of Gentoo is surprisingly simple: Like our use of bash
>> scripts for recipies to build things, like using rsync to deploy/relay
>> not just those recipies, but security notices and ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/02/16 08:46 PM, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that
>> external tools already do this just fine. That's another
>> diff
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:37:28AM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote:
> Wow, that's actually pretty great news. That's enough 'momentum' to
> maybe maintain a smaller ecosystem free of any particular init-system
> preference! Thanks for sharing!
I wouldn't call that much "momentum" since it's about ad
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 11:00:15AM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> Oh, eudev also doesn't handle network link setup given that external
> tools already do this just fine. That's another difference, though
> not one that matters programmatically. That said, the network-link
> setup was added pri
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 03:47:34PM -0800, Daniel Campbell wrote
> I think the only people who can rightfully complain about lack of
> attention or coverage are those who are using these lesser-known or
> lesser-used systems. Maybe we can get some users to step up to the
> plate and contribute to t
Rich Freeman wrote:
> There is already a thread on gentoo-user asking how to safely switch
> from udev->eudev. If that were just a part of the handbook that isn't
> even a migration they'd have to make on a new install. Nor would
> udev->systemd. To summarize my goals in this thread: 1. Suggest tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/09/2016 10:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Brian Dolbec
> wrote:
>>
>> Why must it become yet another shouting match. And I'm sorry to
>> have to tell you this, but you have been leading the charge in
>> that di
1 - 100 of 154 matches
Mail list logo
