Moving from old udev to eudev

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
108 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Dale-46
Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On 02/08/2013 14:10, Dale wrote:
>> Here is
>> where we will always differ, I decide on my machine what I use, NOT
>> YOU.
>
>
> Hey Dale,
>
> Tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back :-)
>
>
> [[ hugz and peace ]]
>


This guy is about to enter Lennart territory.  I see others have set him
straight on some issues too.  Instead of dealing with him, we need to be
assisting the OP.

I'm ill, been ill for weeks and stepping into udev/systemd areas is
well, unwise.  ;-)   This was hashed ages ago and it is the reason eudev
was forked.  Enough said.

Dale

:-)  :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by Dale-46
On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tanstaafl wrote:
>> But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
>> is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
>> hole Sunday...

> This is what I have for that from rc-update show:
>
> udev-postmount |      default

Yes, that is what I still have (because I haven't upgraded udev yet)...

I was just making sure that the instructions for upgrading udev (to
remove this script) didn't apply to eudev.

> If you have something that says different, can you post a link?  I'd
> like to see that.  I don't recall removing any script but again, I was a
> early switcher.
>
> Please excuse the agenda posts by Samuli.  If you chose eudev, like me
> and plenty of others, use eudev.  It's your system and you know what you
> need to use.

No worries... he is why I asked not to use my question to start another
flamewar, although I guess I should have specified udev <> systemd AND
udev <> eudev...

;)

Thanks again, looking forward to getting this behind me. Its been a long
time since I've had zero results when doing an emerge -pvuDN world after
eix-syncing...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Dale-46
Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 2013-08-02 8:15 AM, Dale <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> But what about removing the udev-postmount init script? I guess that
>>> is the last question I need answered before jumping down the rabbit
>>> hole Sunday...
>
>> This is what I have for that from rc-update show:
>>
>> udev-postmount |      default
>
> Yes, that is what I still have (because I haven't upgraded udev yet)...
>
> I was just making sure that the instructions for upgrading udev (to
> remove this script) didn't apply to eudev.
>
>> If you have something that says different, can you post a link?  I'd
>> like to see that.  I don't recall removing any script but again, I was a
>> early switcher.
>>
>> Please excuse the agenda posts by Samuli.  If you chose eudev, like me
>> and plenty of others, use eudev.  It's your system and you know what you
>> need to use.
>
> No worries... he is why I asked not to use my question to start
> another flamewar, although I guess I should have specified udev <>
> systemd AND udev <> eudev...
>
> ;)
>
> Thanks again, looking forward to getting this behind me. Its been a
> long time since I've had zero results when doing an emerge -pvuDN
> world after eix-syncing...
>
>


As always, have a sysrescue stick/CD/DVD handy.  If nothing else, it
warns the evil stuff to stay away.  ;-)  I usually keep a mini sledge
hammer close by but . . . .

Dale

:-)  :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Bill Kenworthy
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
On 02/08/13 19:17, Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 2013-08-01 7:27 PM, William Kenworthy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Something like
>>
>> olympus ~ # cat /etc/portage/package.mask
>>> =sys-fs/udev-180
>> ...
>> olympus ~ #
>>
>> olympus ~ # grep udev /etc/portage/package.keywords
>> sys-fs/eudev ~amd64
>> =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64
>> olympus ~ #
>>
>> unmerge everything udev && emerge eudev
>>
>> its been much less fuss and bother than trying to stick with the udev
>> machinations - I have maybe 15 machines and vm's running eudev, no udev
>> ... :)
>
> Thanks Bill...
>
> Two questions...
>
> 1. Why =virtual/udev-206 ~amd64 instead of virtual/udev ~amd64 ?
>
> and
>
> 2. Did you remove the udev-postmount init script?
>

1. I'm lazy - was probably a cut n paste :)

2. I am interested in this one as the message is ambiguous - I have
removed it on some machines.


BillK


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Walter Dnes
In reply to this post by Samuli Suominen-4
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:42:36AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> nope, you just believed all the FUD there has been out there.
> i've said it many times, and i'll say it again:
>
> the only real different is USE="rule-generator" and that's it
>
> and sys-fs/eudev is constantly out of date and haven't developed any
> features of their own

  udev, the red-headed stepchild of systemd, hasn't exactly had a lot of
new features, either.  The following "FUD" brought to you by
"Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc." http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> 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.
>
> OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd
> however, and that's our primary focus.
>
> And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform
> integration into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for
> non-systemd systems.

  Straight from the horse's mouth, udev won't be getting new features
and the systemd maintainers' main target is integration into systemd.

--
Walter Dnes <[hidden email]>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Walter Dnes
In reply to this post by Samuli Suominen-4
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.

  You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
systemd rammed down our throats...

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> (Yes, 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.)

--
Walter Dnes <[hidden email]>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Walter Dnes
In reply to this post by Samuli Suominen-4
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 10:03:58AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote

> FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be
> built standalone and ran standalone.

  For how long can it be built standalone?  The following "FUD" brought
to you courtesy of Kay Sievers...  http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html

> We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never
> told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands.
>
> We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation
> always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd.
>
> I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the
> announcement, it just wasn't written there.

  That's not some paranoid conspiracy theorist, that's the systemd
developer speaking.

> And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove
> support for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both
> sys-apps/systemd and sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without
> issues.

  What do you mean by eudev supporting systemd?  udev is an integrated
part of the systemd tarball (that can operate standalone... for now).
eudev isn't.  I'm old enough to remember IBM's OS/2 attempting to
support Windows 3.1 and how that got broken by minor binary changes in
Windows 3.11.  eudev would be in a similar situation, attempting to
support a hostile systemd "side-stream".

  I think that the best way to end these arguments is a peaceful divorce
with systemd and eudev each going their own way.

--
Walter Dnes <[hidden email]>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Anthony G. Basile-2
In reply to this post by Walter Dnes
On 08/03/2013 10:56 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>
>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
> systemd rammed down our throats...
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
>

I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
will not be dropped.

>> (Yes, 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.)
>


--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

tanstaafl-2
On 2013-08-04 9:02 AM, Anthony G. Basile <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 08/03/2013 10:56 PM, Walter Dnes wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>>
>>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>>
>>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
>> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
>> systemd rammed down our throats...
>>
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html

> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
> will not be dropped.

Thanks Anthony... that was the only other real concern I had (wondering
if I was juts postponing the inevitable)...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Dale-46
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile-2
Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>
> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
> will not be dropped.
>

I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!

Dale

:-)  :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

tanstaafl-2
On 2013-08-04 11:56 AM, Dale <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>
>> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
>> will not be dropped.
>>
>
> I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
> beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
> say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!

And of course I hit send too early, before adding something similar... :)

Thanks Anthony, your efforts are truly appreciated!

Charles

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
Hi all,

Ok, I didn't get home yesterday like I thought I would, and since I have
found that, for myself, waiting for a saturday morning (so I have a full
weekend to recover if anything goes south) to do anything that has even
a remote possibility of trashing a system always seems to result in
everything working smoothly. So, am going to wait until next weekend to
do this.

I have two last question...

1. When I unmerge 'everything udev', what exactly does that consist
    of *in addition to* "sys-fs/udev"?

and

2. Would anyone who is using eudev please post udev/eudev related
    contents of both package.mask and package.keywords?

The reason I ask for #2 is, I've been playing with pretending emerging
after modifying package.keywords and .mask, and am confused (see the
following errors):

With *only* "sys-fs/eudev ~amd64" in package.keywords and *nothing* in
package.mask, I get the following (as expected because I must first
unmerge "sys-fs/udev" before emerging eudev):

~ emerge -pvuDN eudev

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N    ~] sys-fs/eudev-1.2  USE="modutils openrc rule-generator
-doc -gudev -hwdb -introspection -keymap -kmod (-selinux) -static-libs
{-test}" 1,639 kB
[ebuild     U  ] virtual/udev-200 [171] USE="-gudev -hwdb -introspection
-keymap -kmod* (-selinux) -static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26  5 kB
[blocks B      ] sys-fs/udev ("sys-fs/udev" is blocking sys-fs/eudev-1.2)
[blocks B      ] <sys-fs/udev-186 ("<sys-fs/udev-186" is blocking
sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26)

Total: 3 packages (1 upgrade, 2 new), Size of downloads: 1,644 kB
Conflict: 2 blocks (2 unsatisfied)

Also, I get the exact same thing with either *nothing* (udev/eudev
related) or with "=sys-fs/udev-180" (as suggested by William Kenworthy)
in package.mask.

BUT...

If I add *any* of the following to package.keywords:

sys-fs/udev-init-scripts ~amd64 (don't remember why I had this there),
"=virtual/udev-206 ~amd64" or "virtual/udev ~amd64" (both? suggested by
William) - I get the following error:

~ emerge -pvuDN eudev

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!

emerge: there are no ebuilds built with USE flags to satisfy
">=sys-fs/eudev-1.2[keymap,gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,selinux?,static-libs?]".
!!! One of the following packages is required to complete your request:
- sys-fs/eudev-1.2::gentoo (Change USE: +keymap, this change violates
use flag constraints defined by sys-fs/eudev-1.2: 'keymap? ( hwdb )')
(dependency required by "virtual/udev-206" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "sys-fs/eudev-1.2[openrc]" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "eudev" [argument])

So, the questions are:

Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in
package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need in
package.keywords?

Thanks again to all...

Incidentally, I'm writing this experience up and will post to the list
(with permission to anyone to add to the wiki or anywhere else) once I'm
done...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

Neil Bothwick
On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 14:39:04 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in
> package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need
> in package.keywords?

No and nothing. Howevr, you do need to make sure that your USE flag
settings for sys-fs/eudev match those for virtual/udev, otherwise
sys-eudev won't satisfy its requirements.


--
Neil Bothwick

Hospitality:  making your guests feel like they're at home, even if you
wish they were.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

Dale-46
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
Tanstaafl wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> <<< SNIP >>>
> 2. Would anyone who is using eudev please post udev/eudev related
>    contents of both package.mask and package.keywords?
>
> The reason I ask for #2 is, I've been playing with pretending emerging
> after modifying package.keywords and .mask, and am confused (see the
> following errors):
>
> With *only* "sys-fs/eudev ~amd64" in package.keywords and *nothing* in
> package.mask, I get the following (as expected because I must first
> unmerge "sys-fs/udev" before emerging eudev):
> <<< SNIP >>>
> So, the questions are:
>
> Do I actually and really need *anything* udev/eudev related in
> package.mask, and what, in addition to sys-fs/eudev ~amd64, do I need
> in package.keywords?
>
> Thanks again to all...
>
> Incidentally, I'm writing this experience up and will post to the list
> (with permission to anyone to add to the wiki or anywhere else) once
> I'm done...
>
>


I have this in package.keywords

sys-fs/eudev

I did mask the -9999 version tho since I didn't want to get that brave
in the future.  I'm not sure if you have to keyword or unmask anything
now that it is not beta and been tested more.

Dale

:-)  :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev - more/last questions

Walter Dnes
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:59:36PM -0500, Dale wrote

> I have this in package.keywords
>
> sys-fs/eudev
>
> I did mask the -9999 version tho since I didn't want to get that brave
> in the future.  I'm not sure if you have to keyword or unmask anything
> now that it is not beta and been tested more.

  You can do both in one step, with the following line in package.keywords

<sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64

Replace "amd64" as necessary, if you're not running 64-bit Gentoo on an
AMD or Intel box.

--
Walter Dnes <[hidden email]>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Anthony G. Basile-2
In reply to this post by Dale-46
On 08/04/2013 11:56 AM, Dale wrote:

> Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>
>> I have refrained from flamewars, but I want to reassure people, eudev
>> will not be dropped.
>>
>
> I noticed the other day, posted on this thread by the way, that it left
> beta too.  I'm assuming you are involved in the project so allow me to
> say this:  THANKS MUCH!!!!!!
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>

I am the current lead.  You may follow the activity here [1].

[1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master

--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Samuli Suominen-4
In reply to this post by Walter Dnes
On 04/08/13 05:56, Walter Dnes wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
>> sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
>
>    You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
> non-systemd systems dropped.  Add those two items together, and we get
> systemd rammed down our throats...
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
>
>> (Yes, 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.)
>

That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and
you don't need eudev for that.
If udev upstream makes it impossible to build, or run it standalone then
we need to patch or fork it -- but that's far from now.
In any case there will always be sys-fs/udev and it will never require
sys-apps/systemd.
Futhermore sys-fs/udev will be the default for long as sys-apps/openrc
is the default.

I mean, why the heck fork something too early when upstream still
supports udev on non-systemd init systems?!

- Samuli

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Marc Stuermer

Why is was forked you ask? Because of the predictable Name stuff and some People disliked the attitude of the udev programmer which was "either my way or the high way." aside choice is always Good to have so in the end IT was bound to happen sooner or later and is a Good thing to have.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Samuli Suominen-4
On 05/08/13 13:27, Marc Stürmer wrote:
> Why is was forked you ask? Because of the predictable Name stuff and
> some People disliked the attitude of the udev programmer which was
> "either my way or the high way." aside choice is always Good to have so
> in the end IT was bound to happen sooner or later and is a Good thing to
> have.
>

nope, the forking happened before predictable network interface names.
and forking udev was never the smart choice here, but it would be rather
easy to port the old rule generator as a standalone udev helper and make
it use free names like lan0, wireless0.
as in, you don't change whole car if your tire blows out

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Moving from old udev to eudev

Walter Dnes
In reply to this post by Anthony G. Basile-2
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:12:02AM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote

> I am the current lead.  You may follow the activity here [1].
>
> [1] https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/commits/master

  Thank you very much for your work on eudev, from an end-user who
benefits from your work.

--
Walter Dnes <[hidden email]>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

123456