Gentoo Announces Eudev Project -- Its Udev Fork

[cynyr]

When? Because it's definetly still supported.

Yes, But two issues; 1) i still need to download the systemd source if all i want is udev. 2) i have build systemd if all i want is udev. To build systems I also need dbus installed. Not all systems using udev want/need/have room for dbus.

[RealNC]

Lennart Poettering actually said:

udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop that support entirely.

So if people wanted to have a supported udev for non-SystemD setups, forking looked like the only option. It looks like udev *is* planning to drop support for anything else.

[finalzone]

Lennart Poettering actually said:
So if people wanted to have a supported udev for non-SystemD setups, forking looked like the only option. It looks like udev *is* planning to drop support for anything else.

For now: https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/R387kQb1zxc

If udev is becoming redundant duplicating the functionality of systemd, it is logical to drop it. What is the last time a static dev was used in modern distributions?
At the moment, euvdev appears useless as fork other than being an anti-systemd crusader or like an already doomed udev-lsd

[Delgarde]

Yes, But two issues; 1) i still need to download the systemd source if all i want is udev. 2) i have build systemd if all i want is udev. To build systems I also need dbus installed. Not all systems using udev want/need/have room for dbus.

Partly correct - yes, you need the systemd sources, but you don't need to build the entire of systemd, nor it's dependencies. It's a little fiddly though.

For an example of how this is done, look at the Linux From Scratch project - they use the latest systemd tarball to install udev...

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/...er06/udev.html

Basically, they've patched in their own hand-written Makefile to compile and install the udev sources independently of the systemd build system. Not pretty, but not as ugly as it sounds...

[ryao]

Note from the OP (in FAQ format) that the concept of the Gentoo project announcing things is a somewhat problematic one:

"You are a Gentoo project. What does this mean?

Gentoo as an organization is quite similar to github, although it is exclusive to Gentoo developers. Our rules permit all Gentoo developers have the ability to start a project and such projects are entitled to be hosted on Gentoo infrastructure. This by no means constitutes official endorsement by Gentoo's governing body and we have no authority to dictate the future direction of Gentoo. We do have the ability to provide an alternative to Gentoo users, which we fully intend to do."

(emphasis mine)

How is it problematic?

[RealNC]

If udev is becoming redundant duplicating the functionality of systemd, it is logical to drop it.

Huh? What?

[ninez]

For now: https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/R387kQb1zxc

interesting read (and the other associated comments / links in comments).

Huh? What?

+1 lol.

If udev is becoming redundant duplicating the functionality of systemd, it is logical to drop it

you do realize that this comment makes absolutely no sense, right?

[ryao]

An arch dev -and sysD contributor- commented that in order to fix what they wanted to achieve all they had to do was "write some trivial patches for the builtsystem". Probably the hate for Lennart and Kay played a big role in this fork.

The Gentoo udev maintainers had insisted that we had to follow upstream's vision, which gave the rest of us little choice. Interestingly enough, they are now talking about merging our changes back into their package. This requires maintaining patches that systemd would never accept, but they seem willing to do that now when before they would not.

Anyway, the fork will enforce discipline in what is committed to HEAD from a QA standpoint. The idea is that you should always be able to update an existing system to HEAD without things breaking. Having a separate project is necessary to obtain this because the systemd developers have different priorities. The end result should be better than what we would have had if the Gentoo udev maintainers had been more flexible from the start, so I consider this to be for the best.

[kigurai]

Ok, after reading up on the follup-thread it seems that various patches in the direction were rejected, as were bug reports (closed with "WONTFIX"). So, it seems, forking has it's valid points ... hope they can work out their differences though and merge back together (someone needs to convince Lennart first that udev without systemd also has it's use(r)s)

Are you perhaps referring to the comment in the gentoo-devel thread that says:

"They've essentially announced ahead of time that most bugs from
non-systemd users would be closed with WONTFIX."

In that case, this is speculation, and not fact. I looked through the list of systemd bugzilla and found nothing obvious to support that claim either.

[89c51]

Lennart Poettering actually said:



So if people wanted to have a supported udev for non-SystemD setups, forking looked like the only option. It looks like udev *is* planning to drop support for anything else.

ON the same email you can also read:

Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of
systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new
features to that or anything.

Also more drama:
https://plus.google.com/111049168280...ts/WSYEByD8xDp