On 9/26/2014 1:04 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 25/09/14 22:03, James wrote: >> I'd be better of with a fresh install of lilblue + musl + eudev >> is what you are really saying here?
> that's the only usecase for eudev currently, yes, otherwise you have no > reason to switch Hi Samuli, So, is the above still true? eudev is looking more attractive every day... but can it continue to work and be supported if Lennart gets his way and upstream udev stops working without systemd? Just saw reference to the following thread on the debian-user list, and it includes a couple of responses from you (and an insult hurled at you from Lennart)... and I'm a bit worried that gentoo will be forced to swallow the systemd koolaid sometime maybe even sooner rather than later if Lennart succeeds in making udev work only with systemd, as he makes clear his desire to do just that here: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html Notably: Lennart said: >>> Also note that at that point we intend to move udev onto kdbus >>> as transport, and get rid of the userspace-to-userspace >>> netlink-based tranport udev used so far. Unless the >>> systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until then this >>> will effectively also mean that we will not support non-systemd >>> systems with udev anymore starting at that point. Gentoo folks, >>> this is your wakeup call. Samuli replied: >> I've already set minimum kernel required to 2.6.39 in >= 213, and >> I'd be fine setting it even higher. Talking only of the udev bit >> here. I don't like dropping support for old versions, but if that's >> what has to be done, I'll go with that. Please, don't use this as >> an excuse to drop support for MinimalBuilds as described in wiki in >> some manner. As in, if it's still possible to use some kernel, like >> kernel with kdbus, and even if it requires an userspace library >> like 'libsystemd-something' to go with it, and still get a udev one >> way or another, that can run standalone, we are all good. Lennart responded: > 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 with an alternative for > that. Samuli said: >> I'd really hate to be forced to fork (or carry huge patchset) >> unnecessarily (I'm not a systemd hater, I'm not a eudev lover, I'm >> simply working on what is provided to me by *you*, udev upstream) Lennart replied: > Oh god. You know, if you come me like this as blame me that I would > "force" you to do something, then you just piss me off and make me > ignore you. > > Anyway, as soon as kdbus is merged this i how we will maintain udev, > you have ample time to figure out some solution that works for you, > but we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three > options: a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate systemd > that much, but love udev so much, then implement an alternative > userspace for kdbus to do initialiuzation/policy/activation. > > Also note that this will not be a change that is just internal > between udev and libudev. We expect that clients will soonishly just > start doing normal bus calls to the new udev, like they'd do them to > any other system service instead of using libudev.
