Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 161

Thread: Systemd 199 Has Its Own D-Bus Client Library

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Then it should be split into a separate package. But its not. That is the problem. All of these years of trying to modularize big monolithic packages didnt go wasted. Its a valuable methodology. Systemd spits in the face of what the community has been trying to do for the last years.
    You change topics so quickly it seems you cannot focus at all.

    You want systemd split into different packages. Cool. You call it a problem that it is not split out. Cool.

    But saying that your views on how systemd should work is "spits in the face": Does not make any sense. Also saying "what the community", while the community (loads+loads of distributions have adopted systemd) has gone with systemd does not make sense at all.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sjukfan View Post
    I admit this is a conspiracy theory but I'll just put it out there. Poetterix kernel. I mean, he's into reinventing things and doing things how "it should be done", even if it breaks things. Why not just rewrite the Linux kernel the way it "should be done"?
    He asked for various changes/additions to the kernel and various changes have been made as a result. Furthermore, one kernel developer is now working on making something which will benefit Android as well as udev. Why fork/rewrite if people already do what you request?

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    You change topics so quickly it seems you cannot focus at all.

    You want systemd split into different packages. Cool. You call it a problem that it is not split out. Cool.

    But saying that your views on how systemd should work is "spits in the face": Does not make any sense. Also saying "what the community", while the community (loads+loads of distributions have adopted systemd) has gone with systemd does not make sense at all.
    It spits in the face of package modularity. There is a very good reason why so many big projects have modularized over the last few years... But noooo, LP thinks his way is better... We'll see how long it lasts. For him it isnt about better projects its about control.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Thats the problem. Tell me exactly why should it be the distro's responsibility to fix something that should have been done upstream? Especially in cases where the distro tries to be as close to upstream as possible?
    Split of udev is supported in upstream systemd. It however doesn't support compiling udev without systemd and even that can be fixed by just changing the makefile. I don't really see why systemd/udev developers should support every niche setup imaginable.

    Quote Originally Posted by sjukfan
    Why not just rewrite the Linux kernel the way it "should be done"?
    Because Lennart actually works on technical merit and rewriting Linux wouldn't make any sense?

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Teho View Post
    Split of udev is supported in upstream systemd. It however doesn't support compiling udev without systemd and even that can be fixed by just changing the makefile. I don't really see why systemd/udev developers should support every niche setup imaginable.
    And thats why it was forked. Because they couldnt take the time to keep it modular. Because people like you couldnt see past there own nose and understand that not everyone will be using systemd. That udev in fact has existed before sytstemd and there are in fact configurations that depend on udev that dont need systemd.

    Its arrogant and shortsighted.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    It spits in the face of package modularity. There is a very good reason why so many big projects have modularized over the last few years... But noooo, LP thinks his way is better... We'll see how long it lasts. For him it isnt about better projects its about control.
    Let me give you a technical answer: you can put udev in a different package than systemd.

    I know because, well, Lennart said this. As well as a Mageia packager. Oh, and a Debian packager. Oh, an Ubuntu packager said the same. Oh, an openSUSE packager as well. Damn those (in your words) idiots for doing what you say is not possible!

    Btw, Lennart also said more in that eudev "presentation" during FOSDEM. Would be nice if you would watch that and at least try to learn something. Various inaccuracies like this made by Gentoo "developers" were addressed/educated. :P

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    Let me give you a technical answer: you can put udev in a different package than systemd.

    I know because, well, Lennart said this. As well as a Mageia packager. Oh, and a Debian packager. Oh, an Ubuntu packager said the same. Oh, an openSUSE packager as well. Damn those (in your words) idiots for doing what you say is not possible!

    Btw, Lennart also said more in that eudev "presentation" during FOSDEM. Would be nice if you would watch that and at least try to learn something. Various inaccuracies like this made by Gentoo "developers" were addressed/educated. :P
    You didnt answer my question... Why should I do it? It's the upstream packagers job to keep his packages distro agnostic. Gentoo has a goal of keeping there packages as close to upstream as possible.

    Just because the distro package -can- do upstreams work for them does -not- mean they should.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    You didnt answer my question... Why should I do it? It's the upstream packagers job to keep his packages distro agnostic. Gentoo has a goal of keeping there packages as close to upstream as possible.

    Just because the distro package -can- do upstreams work for them does -not- mean they should.
    You change topics again. Your response to me didn't include any question. So what the hell are you on about now? Modularity? Jeez, look at the systemd. There are loads of different components. It is not one big daemon, but a collection of modular parts. Things which can be enabled and disabled with configure flags.

    Now regarding eudev: Those packagers said it made no sense that udev and systemd were merged. This seems to be the same thing as you are saying. What the eudev did was to make a copy of all the code shared between udev and systemd and then remove the systemd only code. This is not logical at all. Aside from this they removed various code that was unneeded, to later add it back again as they eventually discovered they introduced bugs and well, the code was needed.

    Basing your opinions on eudev developers is really not smart. Also calling for modularity but not knowing how modular systemd is, while at the same time suggesting that duplicating code across packages is a good thing: Jeez!

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Because people like you couldnt see past there own nose and understand that not everyone will be using systemd. That udev in fact has existed before sytstemd and there are in fact configurations that depend on udev that dont need systemd.
    Well the thing is that it was the udev developers who merged udev to systemd. Kay Sievers (~70%) and Gregh K-H have together done around 85% of systemd developemet over the past nine years; both of whom thought that merging the project was appropriate among others. Merging udev to systemd made the developement of udev easier as sharing code and infrastucture with systemd was made possible. Now the makefiles for big and modular projects like systemd get kinda complicated and supporting niche cases like compiling systemd without udev is not something you want to add to that; even more so when there's nothing that would be easier to patch in downstream than just the makefile.

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    It's the upstream packagers job to keep his packages distro agnostic.
    I think that's up to the upstream to decide... They are under no obligation to support every niche setup you throw at them.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TAXI View Post
    For a long time I'm wondering what's wrong with my setup. Google didn't help.
    This is with a emu10k1 card (SB Live! 5.1 Dell OEM [SB0228]).

    I'm happy for any help with this.
    Interesting. What OS and version are you using? Which version of the kernel and PulseAudio? Did you change any PulseAudio defaults? What are your hardware specifications?

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Well, thats the great thing about linux. I can choose a distro that removes me from the retarded decisions that other people make and try to enforce. Yes it is true that LP has made it difficult to not run systemd (with promises to make it even more difficult in the near future), but I'm still managing thanks to the awesome work being done by gentoo devs. As long as this remains an OSS community I think gentoo will manage to keep systemd optional.
    I take it that you have never used systemd yourself? Because it works like a dream. Thanks to the awesome work being done by other Gentoo devs, systemd on Gentoo makes the whole setup and managing process much easier. Everything related to system and daemon startup is managed from a single, coherent interface, using unified and easy to understand unit files. And it allows combining all the different functionality in new and exciting ways without any effort. Heck, I would not have even bothered to install a login manager, if a newer version of D-Bus was available in Portage that has a certain bug fixed that prevents systemd user sessions from starting correctly. That's because systemd makes it all much simpler and easier.

    What I don't like is the negative attitude to it without any real justification. Sure, OpenRC works, as it worked before. Sure, it's an amazing tool to use on BSDs. But there is no reason to hate systemd for that. Or Poettering, even more so. Or making it harder for users who do want to take advantage of it to use systemd - which I have heard from some Gentoo developers, when I mentioned systemd, they said that they just don't want to support anything to do with it, citing the long-term plans of upstream that they don't like and ignoring the actual technical merits of the software...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •