Re: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev
On 11/14/2012 07:53 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> What are the problems they try to address?
Haven't you read this?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505
Plus the unwanted move from / to /usr, insane configuration file
things not using /etc, and more RedHat-ismes which have been
discussed at large in this list (let's not restart such thread).
> The strong binding to
> systemd is good and makes much sense to me, and udev is still usable
> without systemd (and will be in the future).
As they merged, it becomes less and less the case. You're seeing
fixes patching udev to rename it systemd-udev, which really, is more
advertizing / marketing than anything, but it shows what kind of
direction its taking. To me, it looks like udev authors are forcing this
so you have no choice but to use systemd.
> Also, both systemd and udev are Linux-only, so the situation here at
> Debian hasn't changed.
Let's say that we choose another implementation of init (let's say,
upstart or OpenRC, or even keep our old sysv-rc), then having
systemd bound to udev and udev bound to systemd will not make
things easy for us.
> The problems we had in the past with bad udev+kernel combinations and
> changing config file format etc. can also be addressed in udev,
> without the need of forking.
> In general, I think a fork of udev would do much more harm than trying
> to solve the problems in udev.
In an ideal world, yes. But when the development goes wild,
and upstream doesn't listen to others or refuses patches,
what kind of alternative do you have?
> Of course, they're free to fork, but
> the separation will hurt both projects and everything relying on
> udev/the fork.
That is correct, but the pain is already there with the new
versions of udev, and its likely it wont change back.
Thomas
Reply to: