Mailing List Archive

rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev
All,

I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new
systems from eudev to udev.

This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked,
this applies to non-glibc configurations).

What do people think?

Thanks,

William
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new
> systems from eudev to udev.

Well... maybe you could somewhat expand on the why?

--
Andreas K. H?ttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, qa, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on
> new
> systems from eudev to udev.
>
> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I
> checked,
> this applies to non-glibc configurations).
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William
>
>

William,

With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.

I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.

We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
eudev. What's changed?

--
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on
> > new
> > systems from eudev to udev.
> >
> > This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
> > they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
> > the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I
> > checked,
> > this applies to non-glibc configurations).
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > William
> >
> >
>
> William,
>
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.

Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
Udev runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
is necessary for most of Gentoo.

> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
>
> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
> eudev. What's changed?

If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
a case for it being the default.

Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.

William
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on
>>> new
>>> systems from eudev to udev.
>>>
>>> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
>>> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
>>> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I
>>> checked,
>>> this applies to non-glibc configurations).
>>>
>>> What do people think?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> William
>>>
>>>
>>
>> William,
>>
>> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
>> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
>> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> ?
> Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
> and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
> Udev? runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
> is necessary for most of Gentoo.

It actually works is enough reason for me.? Was forced to migrate a
bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations.?
Mostly on systems with LVM.

I'm completely against the proposal.

>> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
>> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
>>
>> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
>> eudev. What's changed?
>
> If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> a case for it being the default.

Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.? Might be
configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
commands as simple as "lvs".? eudev in coparison just works.

>
> Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
> person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.

Yes, this is a problem.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3
7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ
u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa
Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb
IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W
c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY
G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg==
=rF5/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 11:38:36PM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2020/08/08 22:57, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> >> On 2020.08.08 19:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on
> >>> new
> >>> systems from eudev to udev.
> >>>
> >>> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
> >>> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
> >>> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I
> >>> checked,
> >>> this applies to non-glibc configurations).
> >>>
> >>> What do people think?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> William
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> William,
> >>
> >> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> >> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> >> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> > ?
> > Eudev never became necessary unless you are using a non-glibc system,
> > and as I said, this can be handled in the profiles.
> > Udev? runs completely fine without systemd, so I fail to see how eudev
> > is necessary for most of Gentoo.
>
> It actually works is enough reason for me.? Was forced to migrate a
> bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
> systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
> lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations.?
> Mostly on systems with LVM.

I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this
proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites
for eudev, just making it the default for new installs.

> I'm completely against the proposal.
>
> >> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> >> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> >>
> >> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
> >> eudev. What's changed?
> >
> > If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> > need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> > a case for it being the default.
>
> Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.? Might be
> configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
> configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
> commands as simple as "lvs".? eudev in coparison just works.

I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible
configuration dependence.

When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup?

William

> >
> > Another thing to consider is bus factor (eudev is maintained by one
> > person primarily, so I have doubts about its viability as the default.
>
> Yes, this is a problem.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jaco
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vG1AACgkQCC3Esa/3
> 7p7Yvgf6Apoi1oCUKSyLEvH8fAEgbMIODULJAZx5+/C1dbROdjkWEzTTp3pNjWiQ
> u8S2qz3xmh9QmKBwTAxB38U/gqXVRpF+xYfSF7K/CDUVcfAg5ViTL3W7YeJMPFNa
> Jk8BgrarAc1Ln8OXCJ37Gf0eeuyBTsQQQ5qqubzNjdLBhrZegWY57gElrItE0Ywb
> IjVBUO4QX3PSoOpZ5UlIo8Ioh+8ANXc/ADg7wASVQkd3dciyewZasZho/q6cNn6W
> c44aMNFRTeiUfcK4+bpGMslq70y7D7JITkjkP+9e68e8wkh93L8fVs4BszBYEtUY
> G6IXc4QtJ5Jf3bQRbyCnGcFYXrSLgg==
> =rF5/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
>
> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.

So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason
to base the decision on. IMO it was paranoid years ago when people
first brought it up. Now it is even moreso considering that years
have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed. If
their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to
mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use
(e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least
they would still be talking about it.

William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and
generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
intentionally don't want to accept)?

I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the
two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of
were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default
persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not
made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other
differences.

--
Rich
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

It actually works is enough reason for me.? Was forced to migrate a
> bunch of systems not six months back from systemd-udev to eudev because
> systemd-udev is absolutely terrible w.r.t. race conditions resulting in
> lockups that kept forcing us into manual intervention situations.
> Mostly on systems with LVM.
>
> > I don't exactly know what your situation is, but as I said, this
> > proposal wouldn't affect your systems. I'm not talking about lastrites
> > for eudev, just making it the default for new installs.

It would affect new installations.? But yes, we can switch it back to
eudev post install.

>
> I'm completely against the proposal.
>
> >>>> I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> >>>> to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> >>>>
> >>>> We had this discussion several years ago when the default became
> >>>> eudev. What's changed?
> >>>
> >>> If systemd folks do make udev inseparable from systemd, then we would
> >>> need eudev to be the default, but as I see it right now, there is not
> >>> a case for it being the default.
>
> Other than that it works and the systemd version does not.? Might be
> configuration dependent, but I don't expect a default udev
> configuration/system side to not cause LVM breakages when running
> commands as simple as "lvs".? eudev in coparison just works.
>
> >? I don't know what is going on with your systems, but I suspect possible
> >? configuration dependence.

Ok, simplest mechanism we've found:

Install a system with at least one LV partition and leave some space
available in the VG, then do:

term 1:? watch lvs

term 2:? while true; do lvcreate -L1G -s -ntemp_snap /dev/${vg}/${lv} &&
lvremove /dev/${vg}/temp_snap; done

Give it anywhere from two two five minutes.? Can be hours sometimes.?
But eventually it does die.? Can't say the same for eudev.

>
> > When are the breakages happening-- just at random or during bootup?

In some cases rebooting is the only way to recover.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEyyCUcKjG7P5BDam8CC3Esa/37p4FAl8vJyEACgkQCC3Esa/3
7p4eewf/bOXgnx4n30HUZnTmvhyjC4F2MTc8bOwYj45t+UMeGoIN8C+GMHxWMGvG
NQpoK2hkY8egykCbuO4rSBwV9YS/naAiAZEcEXCPdcAUgV2FxJSGWKCLDLfTiflg
vXCLpd8ybxVbVhEO5XU8K4jTc9fc4peY/4ZVK0Lhl80rzWLf/yrc9+IurBZE+0g0
GXpHxNa6e2AZWPFyNXMu83fatlyOZpy/WXE7owb+yLPwTJPs30W9OLFQ6lWXSLdx
FGyLBh8vFn9BExF3IS1ZgKYIBRrH45AazMNV3+fvO+aZX/6UfXDID/JDjXHdq3bl
awMSVX40kYbgskCkOwf5DreCrs7nBw==
=ROIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> > systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> >
> > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the
> road
> > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
>
> So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
> any of my Gentoo hosts either way, ..
[snip]
>
> --
> Rich
>

Rich,

I don't have a dog in this fight. Being old and cynical, I have static /dev,
so I use neither.

I'm interested in what's changed since the Council decision [1] to make
eudev the default.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/573922#c28

--
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:48 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 2020.08.08 23:22, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> > > systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> > > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> > >
> > > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the
> > road
> > > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
> >
> > So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
> > any of my Gentoo hosts either way, ..
>
> I don't have a dog in this fight. Being old and cynical, I have static /dev,
> so I use neither.
>
> I'm interested in what's changed since the Council decision [1] to make
> eudev the default.
>

And you'll note that this is the one line in your post I didn't quote,
because it was about the only thing that you said which made sense. I
wasn't in any way criticizing that point, and basically asked the same
question myself.

--
Rich
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
Hi Rich,

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 06:22:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:17 PM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> > systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> > That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.
> >
> > I would want some convincing that it was not another step on the road
> > to Gentoo being assimilated by systemd.
>
> So, I really could care less what the default is since it won't impact
> any of my Gentoo hosts either way, but this seems like a silly reason
> to base the decision on. IMO it was paranoid years ago when people
> first brought it up. Now it is even moreso considering that years
> have elapsed without any grand systemd conspiracy being revealed. If
> their goal was to make it impossible to use udev on its own just to
> mess with the 0.01% of Linux users who don't use systemd but do use
> (e)udev, I'd think they'd have gotten around to it by now, or at least
> they would still be talking about it.

I couldn't agree with you more on this point. I think if they were
going to make udev impossible to use without systemd they would have
gotten around to that by now. And, yes, the fear of this was the
primary reason for the switch when the council voted to change it.

> William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
> Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and
> generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
> intentionally don't want to accept)?

It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I
don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What
I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago,
and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev.

> I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the
> two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of
> were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default
> persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not
> made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other
> differences.

The only other one I know of is if you aren't using glibc udev will not
compile, but I'm not even sure that is an issue still.

The way I see it, we switched away from udev because of a fear that
never materialized, and I'm not convinced that we have enough time to
keep it in feature parity with udev which it needs to be to be the
default provider.

I am going to echo again. I am not talking about removing eudev from the
tree, so you would be able to use it if you want. I'm just suggesting
that we should start new systems out with udev.

William
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 2020-08-08 at 21:17 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> With the declared aim from upstream of making udev inseparable from
> systemd, its not something to be done lightly.
> That's the entire reason that eudev was necessary.

Really? And I've thought that the primary reason was that udev upstream
has removed the 'repeatedly bash the rules until they succeed' feature
that required people to actually fix things.

--
Best regards,
Micha? Górny
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:57 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> > William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
> > Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and
> > generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
> > intentionally don't want to accept)?
>
> It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I
> don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What
> I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago,
> and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev.
>
> > I'd be curious as to a list of the practical differences between the
> > two at this point. For the longest time the only ones I was aware of
> > were the de-bundled build system, and the change in the default
> > persistent ethernet device name rule which was made in udev but not
> > made (by default) in eudev. Perhaps at this point there are other
> > differences.
>
> The only other one I know of is if you aren't using glibc udev will not
> compile, but I'm not even sure that is an issue still.
>
> The way I see it, we switched away from udev because of a fear that
> never materialized, and I'm not convinced that we have enough time to
> keep it in feature parity with udev which it needs to be to be the
> default provider.


Name the missing features in eudev.
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> What do people think?

Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?

What do you expect from this change?

Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev?


--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > What do people think?
>
> Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?

Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away
from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As
already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable
without systemd they would have by now.

> What do you expect from this change?

I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community
uses for device management.

> Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
> default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev?

Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It
was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages.
It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd
consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd.

Years later, this has not happened, so to be honest, I think it is time
to admit that we , as a council and distro, over reacted and undo that
over reaction.

Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are
cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am
saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default
distro wide.

William
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 11:22 AM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > What do people think?
> >
> > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?
>
> Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away
> from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As
> already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable
> without systemd they would have by now.
>
> > What do you expect from this change?
>
> I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community
> uses for device management.
>

"I expect Gentoo to use, by default, what most of the Linux community uses
for init management." So we should make the systemd profile the default? :)


>
> > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
> > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use
> sys-fs/udev?
>
> Please look back at the history of why we switched away from udev. It
> was not technical. Udev did not cause any wide scale distro breakages.
> It was because some folks were very loud about a possible systemd
> consppiracy around making udev not work without systemd.
>

You asked me on IRC "how do I convince people" and part of that is to make
it easy to agree with your argument! Asking me to read a bunch of crap
isn't going to make me want to agree; its going to make me say "your
argument is poorly formed, please go away."

- Link to the things you want me to read.
- Summarize them so I don't have to read a 100 message long thread from 5
years ago.
- Make an argument!

---
"I think we picked eudev as the default because of a concern that udev
would eventually require systemd for operation, you can see this from these
mailing list posts: X, Y, Z."
"The above concern has not manifested itself and I believe udev will
continue to not strictly require systemd init for various reasons (mention
list of cases here."
"Therefore I think we should change the default udev provider from eudev to
udev in the default profiles."
---

This would be what I believe is a understandable argument (provided we had
the links to the previous material.) I'm not saying I agree[0] with it; but
I'd at least understand why you want the change to happen.


> Notice again that I'm not saying we need to lastrites eudev. There are
> cases that have developed for it (mainly non-glibc systems), but I am
> saying I see no justification at this point for it being the default
> distro wide.

William
>
>
[0] I expect that most users who want udev actually also want systemd and
so will simply select the systemd profile itself, and that this choice is
immaterial to most users; so I am for keeping the status quo here.
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 01:22:44PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:40:07PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > On 2020-08-08 20:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > What do people think?
> >
> > Like others already asked: What's the reason for this?
>
> Like others have said on the thread, the reason for the switch away
> from udev in the past was mostly fear driven instead of fact driven. As
> already said, if the udev developers were going to make udev unusable
> without systemd they would have by now.
>
> > What do you expect from this change?

> > Is there a problem when new Gentoo installations will use EUDEV by
> > default? Or is there a benefit if new installations would use sys-fs/udev?

Here is something else to consider.

Blueness and any of the other eudev maintainers are doing good work
for alternative c library support such as musl. In fact, the musl
profiles hard mask sys-fs/udev, so they are covered no matter what
happens as a result of this thread.

Eudev is supposed to be udev without systemd along with alternative c
library support, but it appears to be behind what eudev offers.

The following commit appears to be the last time eudev synced with udev:

https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commit/2ab887ec67afd15eb9b0849467f1f9c036a2b6c8

There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date of this
sync:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev

There are several new commits in libudev and udev rules since then as
well:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/libudev
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/rules.d

I would like to publically thank Leio for providing me with the
information above.

I asked the council for guidance and was told that they don't need to be
involved, so I guess the best thing to do now is call for testers.

It would be helpful if people migrate their systems manually from eudev to udev
and report issues.

I'm not a valid test case because I have always run udev.

Thanks,

William
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> writes:

>> William - can you actually elaborate on WHY you want to change things?
>> Is there some problem with eudev? Is it actively maintained and
>> generally tracking upstream udev commits (minus whatever they
>> intentionally don't want to accept)?
>
> It is maintained primarily by one person the last time I checked, and I
> don't really know what he has included or not included from udev. What
> I can say is that the last release of eudev hit the tree a year ago,
> and I'm not sure about feature parity with udev.

What feature do you miss from systemd-udev that has been added within a
year?

udev should be a stable part of the system, I would rather have new
Gentoo users install something stable by default than a moving target.

Benda
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On 8/8/2020 14:51, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to propose that we switch the default udev provider on new
> systems from eudev to udev.
>
> This is not a lastrites, and it will not affect current systems since
> they have to migrate manually. Also, this change can be overridden at
> the profile level if some profile needs eudev (the last time I checked,
> this applies to non-glibc configurations).
>
> What do people think?
>
> Thanks,
>
> William

Is eudev broken in some way? If so, has a bug been filed? If not, why not?

If eudev is not broken, then why your proposed fix?

It works fine for new installs, having just done one myself. Seems like we
aught to keep it that way. I count six open bugs against eudev right now,
and none of them look to be critical, so I vote "no" on your proposal unless
there is some verifiable reason why eudev is no longer suitable to be the
default udev provider.

--
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Aug 2020, William Hubbs wrote:

> There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date
> of this sync:

> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev

And what does this tell us? Commit count isn't very useful as a metric.

Do these commits fix any bugs that are still open in eudev? Do they add
any important features?

Ulrich
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On 2020-08-09 23:14, William Hubbs wrote:
> Here is something else to consider.
>
> Blueness and any of the other eudev maintainers are doing good work
> for alternative c library support such as musl. In fact, the musl
> profiles hard mask sys-fs/udev, so they are covered no matter what
> happens as a result of this thread.
>
> Eudev is supposed to be udev without systemd along with alternative c
> library support, but it appears to be behind what eudev offers.
>
> The following commit appears to be the last time eudev synced with udev:
>
> https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commit/2ab887ec67afd15eb9b0849467f1f9c036a2b6c8
>
> There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date of this
> sync:
>
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev
>
> There are several new commits in libudev and udev rules since then as
> well:
>
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/libudev
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/rules.d
>
> I would like to publically thank Leio for providing me with the
> information above.
>
> I asked the council for guidance and was told that they don't need to be
> involved, so I guess the best thing to do now is call for testers.
>
> It would be helpful if people migrate their systems manually from eudev to udev
> and report issues.
>
> I'm not a valid test case because I have always run udev.

This is not answering my questions.

If anything from above would be valid (like others have asked you for
bugs and already mentioned that commit count alone don't say anything)
we wouldn't just be talking about switching default for *new*
installations. Instead we would need to talk about ditching eudev in
general...

So for me it still looks like change for change's sake without a real
reason.


--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 13:52 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-08-09 23:14, William Hubbs wrote:
> > Here is something else to consider.
> >
> > Blueness and any of the other eudev maintainers are doing good work
> > for alternative c library support such as musl. In fact, the musl
> > profiles hard mask sys-fs/udev, so they are covered no matter what
> > happens as a result of this thread.
> >
> > Eudev is supposed to be udev without systemd along with alternative c
> > library support, but it appears to be behind what eudev offers.
> >
> > The following commit appears to be the last time eudev synced with udev:
> >
> > https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commit/2ab887ec67afd15eb9b0849467f1f9c036a2b6c8
> >
> > There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date of this
> > sync:
> >
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev
> >
> > There are several new commits in libudev and udev rules since then as
> > well:
> >
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/libudev
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/rules.d
> >
> > I would like to publically thank Leio for providing me with the
> > information above.
> >
> > I asked the council for guidance and was told that they don't need to be
> > involved, so I guess the best thing to do now is call for testers.
> >
> > It would be helpful if people migrate their systems manually from eudev to udev
> > and report issues.
> >
> > I'm not a valid test case because I have always run udev.
>
> This is not answering my questions.
>
> If anything from above would be valid (like others have asked you for
> bugs and already mentioned that commit count alone don't say anything)
> we wouldn't just be talking about switching default for *new*
> installations. Instead we would need to talk about ditching eudev in
> general...
>
> So for me it still looks like change for change's sake without a real
> reason.
>

...or a revert of a change made for change's sake. In the end, it all
boils down to preference of a single person, and potential of another
person reverting it.

--
Best regards,
Micha? Górny
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 09:35 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 09 Aug 2020, William Hubbs wrote:
> > There are roughly 100 commits in the udev master branch since the date
> > of this sync:
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commits/master/src/udev
>
> And what does this tell us? Commit count isn't very useful as a metric.

Yes, contributor count is a more important metric. It helps us tell
the original project that has community from fork with a bus factor
of one.

>
> Do these commits fix any bugs that are still open in eudev? Do they add
> any important features?
>

We can fork any random project and claim that our fork is better because
we consider it feature complete. Then we can freely claim that upstream
commits don't fix any real bugs, and new features aren't important. If
you don't change anything, you don't break anything, right?

--
Best regards,
Micha? Górny
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On 2020-08-10 14:07, Micha? Górny wrote:
> ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake.

That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in
https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718.


--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
Re: rfc: switching default udev provider for new systems to udev [ In reply to ]
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 8:16 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-10 14:07, Micha? Górny wrote:
> > ...or a revert of a change made for change's sake.
>
> That's a bold statement for an unambiguous 7-0 decision as seen in
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/575718.

As one who voted yes, my rationale is already in the bug comments, and
I voted yes because it seemed to be the preference of most non-systemd
users on the mailing list. I can't say whether this is still the case
but I'm guessing it is. I don't think it is really a well-founded
preference but I don't really see a point in fighting it when people
can use whichever they prefer.

If the eudev bus factor drops from 1 to 0 and people get tired of
dealing with it, I suspect switching back will become more popular.
If that never happens that is fine too. If people have unusual
configs not addressed by eudev, or just plain old good taste, they
can always use udev or systemd.

If eudev were causing serious problems or holding back other projects
for some reason I'd feel differently. Otherwise I tend to agree with
the sense that if you're going to make a change there should be a
reason. The reason for the previous change was that a strong majority
had a strong preference. Based on the tone of discussion I'm not sure
that has changed - there isn't as much vehemence in the discussion,
but I suspect that is mostly because most don't think this is likely
to happen so they don't bother to reply.

--
Rich

1 2  View All