Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Gentoo: Dev

Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

 

 

Gentoo dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


slong at rathaus

May 7, 2012, 6:40 PM

Post #1 of 68 (1261 views)
Permalink
Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]

Greg KH wrote:

> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
>> >> To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs:

>> > systemd and udev are being merged into one tarball. For the
>> > "foreseeable future", it will still build 2 separate binaries.
>> > What happens down the road if/when it all becomes one combined
>> > binary?
<snip>
>> (It's much easier to introduce coupling between software in the same
>> package. GregKH has also mooted a tightly-coupled "core" Linux distro,
>> which afaict is the same reasoning as GnomeOS, and /that/ sounds like a
>> clusterfsck waiting to happen.)
>
> "mooted"?
>
Yes, in the sense of "raised it as a possibility" or in this case a future
direction[1] as discussed on debian-dev[2].

I'll assume you're just not familiar with the word 'moot' as a verb;
originally the adjective meant 'on the agenda' or 'on the table', and 'to
moot' means to raise an item for discussion. Its modern meaning of 'no
longer worth discussing' comes from the judiciary: for it to be dismissed,
it had to be under discussion in the first place, and so usage evolved.

> And since when does having a set of tightly coupled base libraries and
> systems that work well together somehow turn into "GnomeOS"? Reaching
> like that is just foolish on your part.
>
When did I say that it's the same thing? I simply said it sounds like "the
same reasoning." Compare:

"There are a number of folk in the Linux ecosystem pushing for a
small core of tightly coupled components to make the core of a modern
linux distro. The idea is that this 'core distro' can evolve in sync
with the kernel, and generally move fast. This is both good for the
overall platform and very hard to implement for the 'universal'
distros [such as Gentoo or Debian]." [1]

..with:
"The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend
that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different
kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries..
Kernels just aren't that interesting. Linux isn't an OS. Now it is
our job to try to build one - finally. Let's do it."[3]

They sound like very similar reasoning to me. You misinterpreted what I
said, which is one thing: there was no need to be discourteous.

Let me be clear: I don't personally have an issue with udev talking to dbus
(a requirement for it sounds wrong to me, but that's by-the-by.) It would
annoy me no end, however, if udev required systemd, since I don't want to
switch to it. And that is what we were discussing: possible future coupling
between the two, which is much easier to do when the sources are part of the
same package.

Everything I need done on a desktop or a laptop in terms of hotplug, acpid
events and wifi, the current udev has been able to do for years. I'd find it
odd (read: the design smells) if those use-cases suddenly required new
external dependencies. AFAIC vertical integration is supposed to mean closer
downward coupling, typically skipping a layer or two; if it also means
upward coupling, then the design is flawed ime.

*shrug* What you do with your time, is your business. I'll evaluate any
coupling that does or doesn't come up as and when, and make my own decisions
then.

That it's been mooted by you ;) means I'm glad others are doing work on
busybox and mdev integration into openrc (I've read tonight that mdev works
fine for simple hotplug like USB sticks) especially the applet to fsck and
mount /usr early.

OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a
design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close integration
with the underlying udev implementation[PS].

SteveL.

[1] https://plus.google.com/u/0/111049168280159033135/posts/V2t57Efkf1s
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/04/msg00649.html
[3] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2011-May/msg00439.html

[PS] Though it reminds me of packages distributing libraries, and I'd
question why one git repo can't be used to make two tarballs, with beta
testing of udev alone by distros like Gentoo or Debian. A separate tarball
would mean automated tests can be done, which is useful as a basis for
systemd et al: another benefit of no upward coupling.

--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)


ryao at cs

May 7, 2012, 7:09 PM

Post #2 of 68 (1218 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 05/07/12 21:40, Steven J Long wrote:
> "The future of GNOME is as a Linux based OS. It is harmful to pretend
> that you are writing the OS core to work on any number of different
> kernels, user space subsystem combinations, and core libraries..
> Kernels just aren't that interesting. Linux isn't an OS. Now it is
> our job to try to build one - finally. Let's do it."[3]

For what it is worth, the OS core is the kernel, libc and bootloader.
GNOME runs on top of that.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


gregkh at gentoo

May 9, 2012, 11:32 AM

Post #3 of 68 (1209 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:40:41AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote:
> OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a
> design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close integration
> with the underlying udev implementation[PS].

Nope, can't make that assurance at all.

Actually, maybe I can make the opposite assurance, let's see what the
future brings... :)

greg k-h


lxnay at gentoo

May 9, 2012, 11:51 AM

Post #4 of 68 (1211 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

I foresee a new udev fork then.
If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable.

With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending
on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.

Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
--
Fabio Erculiani


gregkh at gentoo

May 9, 2012, 3:36 PM

Post #5 of 68 (1213 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I foresee a new udev fork then.

Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
created it.

Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly
encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone
involved.

> If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable.

That's an odd transition...

> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending
> on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.

Hyperbole, how nice :(

> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.

The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
should be ashamed of yourself.

Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.

No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
and needs to stop right now.

greg k-h


patrick at gentoo

May 9, 2012, 6:08 PM

Post #6 of 68 (1211 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 05/10/12 06:36, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> I foresee a new udev fork then.
> Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
> created it.
>
> Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly
> encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone
> involved.
Forks are often unnecessary.

Now instead of working on something useful I get to spend my time
reverting to previous behaviour, just so I can have a working solution
instead of a shiny one.

Are we really doing so well that we can just rewrite everything instead
of maybe, for once, have things boring predictable and bugfree? I mean
... things were going so well. Machines Just Booted Every TIme.

And now - UEFI is glitching all over the place, the GPT-aware
bootloaders have config files with insane complexity and are exquisitely
buggy, and someone thought making the init system exciting would just
make life oh so much better. Result: I can't get more than a blinking
cursor out of some machines without resorting to Dirty Hacks I would
really prefer not to even consider.


Seriously. I don't have time for these games. Stop breaking stuff!
>
>> If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable.
> That's an odd transition...
Same people involved, same mentality - and we don't want to be standing
on the sides saying "Told you so" again. Gets boring.
>
>> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending
>> on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.
> Hyperbole, how nice :(
>
>> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
> The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
> should be ashamed of yourself.
It's reactive. I've been called stupid, conservative, behind the times,
user of obsolete software that will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why
should we be ashamed of not agreeing with these funny pranksters?
>
> Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.
Then make it stop? :)
>
> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
Yeah, I can just stop updating. Sounds like a solution to all problems ;)
> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
> stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
> and needs to stop right now.
Goes both ways. We're here because of Freedom, in various flavours.
Freedom to copy things around and use for free. Freedom to swap out one
part and use another.
Freedom to break things badly.

So why would I give up my freedom to tinker just because someone else is
writing more code than I do?
And I still have the freedom to complain all day long about undesigned
stuff people try to force on me.

Hey, you even have the freedom to complain about my complaining.

Either way, I hope I can continue using Free Linux for a while and not
be forced to use random things that are silly. I'd have expected you to
support that.

Take care,

Patrick


rich0 at gentoo

May 9, 2012, 8:08 PM

Post #7 of 68 (1215 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Patrick Lauer <patrick [at] gentoo> wrote:
> On 05/10/12 06:36, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
>> The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
>> should be ashamed of yourself.
> It's reactive. I've been called stupid, conservative, behind the times,
> user of obsolete software that will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why
> should we be ashamed of not agreeing with these funny pranksters?

Look, I have pretty mixed feelings about all the vertical integration.
However, let's at least do each other the professional courtesy of
not resorting to name-calling. We're allowed to disagree, and that's
OK. By all means voice your opinion. However, let's talk about the
issues, and not the people advocating them.

This is just polite behavior. It is also the rules for posting on
this list, especially if you hold a g.o address.

> So why would I give up my freedom to tinker just because someone else is
> writing more code than I do?

I understand your frustration. Really, I do - I often find myself
sharing it. However, in the end people working on FOSS are basically
free to do what they want, and everybody is free to use or support
what they want. I don't like the fact that most people contributing
to Android tend/aspire to be associated with the commercial market for
smartphones, and as a result they tend to embrace pro-developer /
anti-consumer solutions (like not allowing easy blocking of ads, or
randomizing calls to read the IMEI, etc). However, the market is what
it is. The only thing that is really any different today is that
companies are at least releasing the source for the stuff they do - in
the past they'd have just closed it all off so that there wouldn't
even be the option of forking. If I want to I can at least find the
API call to read my IMEI and tamper with it.

I think part of the community frustration is the increasing level of
commercial support around Linux. That has given us much more robust
stuff to play with, but it also has resulted in a loss of control and
change in general atmosphere. In the world of 1999 Linux market share
took a back seat to hackability. In the world of the Canonicals,
market share matters a great deal, and appealing to open source
contributors matters a lot less.

Rich


lxnay at gentoo

May 9, 2012, 9:34 PM

Post #8 of 68 (1216 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
right, after all.
Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.
If you want to bring complexity but you end up not being able to
handle it, then you're not a really good engineer, IMHO.

Having said that, I also wonder where's the lovely modularity the
various *nix platforms had. If this is the actual direction of Linux
Foundation, Redhat and Canonical, I am worried that Linux would end up
being an OSX-wannabe.

Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the
one of the majority of users I've been talking with.
I am not against changes, I am actually in favor of them, but only
when they really make sense and solve problems, which it doesn't seem
the case lately.

I didn't want to offend anyone, but just having fun (sigh) of IMHO bad
design decisions.
--
Fabio Erculiani


chithanh at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 4:44 AM

Post #9 of 68 (1212 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Greg KH schrieb:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
> The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
> should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.

You mean as unacceptable as calling C++ proponents "full of
bullshit"[1], developers of another operating system "masturbating
monkeys"[2] and security researchers as "people wanking around with
their opinions"[3]?

> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
> stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
> and needs to stop right now.

Insulting other people is indeed not nice. A borderline statement would
be the "card-carrying member of the Poettering gang" which was coined by
a well-known kernel developer who shall remain unnamed here.
But using harsh words to describe other people's software? C'mon.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn


[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/57643/focus=57918
[2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/296
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/1/217


zmedico at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 7:39 AM

Post #10 of 68 (1210 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 05/10/2012 04:44 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
>> stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
>> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
>> and needs to stop right now.
>
> Insulting other people is indeed not nice. A borderline statement would
> be the "card-carrying member of the Poettering gang" which was coined by
> a well-known kernel developer who shall remain unnamed here.
> But using harsh words to describe other people's software? C'mon.

Specific criticism's can be be constructive, but calling PulseAudio a
name like FailAudio certainly isn't. I'd enjoy reading this thread a lot
more if it contained more discussion about solutions, and less of what
seems like whining due to self-pity.
--
Thanks,
Zac


tester at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 9:54 AM

Post #11 of 68 (1213 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 06:34 +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
> right, after all.

I would express my opinion about Fabio made software, but I've never
heard of any.

> Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
> systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
> choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
> instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
> through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
> ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.

Maybe the reason every sensible distribution uses Avahi, Pulseaudio, etc
is because they are better than other solutions out there?
Do you think is a fast conspiracy to make your life suck? I believe
engineers in every distribution are looking at what's available and
picking what they think is the best solution, and it turns out Lennart
is pretty damn good at making useful software.

Was alsa always working? I remember spending hours trying to figure out
the right control in alsamixer and fighting with alsa's arcane
configuration languages (it has 3 different ones). And how do you deal
with modern technologies like Bluetooth audio without Pulseaudio
exactly?

> Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the
> one of the majority of users I've been talking with.

I think you only hear from users who like to complain, others are just
happy that everything works for them thanks to Pulseaudio, systemd, etc.
If you think that Lennart does not solve problems, maybe it's because
you don't even understand what the problems were? For example, I
encourage you to read about how the dynamic latency in PA allows for
lower power usage or how modern audio hardware is designed to use a
userspace sound server, etc.

--
Olivier Crte
tester [at] gentoo
Gentoo Developer
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


levertond at googlemail

May 10, 2012, 11:57 AM

Post #12 of 68 (1205 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Greg KH wrote:
> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
> stopping you.

Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS
that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone
else is perfectly happy with.


zmedico at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 12:22 PM

Post #13 of 68 (1206 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 05/10/2012 11:57 AM, David Leverton wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
>> stopping you.
>
> Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS
> that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone
> else is perfectly happy with.

Isn't it presumptuous to say that they hate Unix? Maybe their vision of
how they'd like Unix to be is just different from yours?
--
Thanks,
Zac


levertond at googlemail

May 10, 2012, 12:30 PM

Post #14 of 68 (1205 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Zac Medico wrote:
> Isn't it presumptuous to say that they hate Unix? Maybe their vision of
> how they'd like Unix to be is just different from yours?

If "how they'd like Unix to be" goes so blatantly against its
fundamental design principles then I think it's reasonable to say that
they hate it.


hwoarang at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 12:55 PM

Post #15 of 68 (1206 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 05/09/2012 07:51 PM, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> I foresee a new udev fork then. If udev is going to end up like
> avahi is, this is *highly* probable.
>
> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob
> depending on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.
>
> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been
> enough, thanks.

I sincerely hope someone has "hacked" into your account and he is
writing on your behalf. This sort of trash talk does not belong to a
public Gentoo mailing list. Make a constructive criticism if you
really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use.

- --
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPrB0WAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFGYQAJiKzJ6RUYrkCswRBeWFk9Vn
6kOybbC9nn8LgQuoSjlNXWQ2jm5qqYEWhwzmFJMaeYJ7vpaVNL9nDTslloiXiw46
2dEjBUyXzmx90VIAvAvos3lec2C45vHXUYwjCp8VfwIfL+syPfb0wIXIn+RETAHg
2c4vyPRvv145zCPRkdF/b0GV4ai6JozRTrUOn2dobEs2SaqadqY4cw5uj1P47Msd
Jezdz4MaPUPf16q0CoK6yi4U0jkzEqGtJbinHT4ib9PMhYX8WXjJtLloaBiQk01l
bKNJWOAMIEpWK6dD2rko5pY4igS9ccbFCLlEDnELQBSHXDGAmarmGRlN6C/qVasY
019n3fSUsLt+kMeH2WgfmmXViyBgPeQxMY0E4HVkV+ztwNp3by8gG3jtuQeX+Kij
WaECR/2/DwUTU+kLLkkEa2FZSrg8xwG3Ty5SpCAVQWcJIn3L1tziD58kt1DtpJjs
jt0bV1eT2JnxL4v7GopxUI55n4bmqqzRP7SebkK4B7AOlae1fxjukqpNC6s6oTgc
CBoWiJ7DkRbcTk+ww+MF+xUCmYrqPFlf8aQ8+j16LogaTCeV09QIhAqUKkcQB8Lx
k6gGD6H5elPsYDm1gP/wBe1WEe6zLXDLd6LFiEYKHjyiznGDs1BAEk0oJMbob5I3
HbAYiBP8P7D7FBosO7oj
=INQn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


ciaran.mccreesh at googlemail

May 10, 2012, 12:59 PM

Post #16 of 68 (1208 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
Markos Chandras <hwoarang [at] gentoo> wrote:
> Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> software that nobody forces you to use.

Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the
issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical
integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of
software that we would prefer not to.

- --
Ciaran McCreesh
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk+sHi8ACgkQ96zL6DUtXhGZoQCeN5o15CIzO0xJTCNkOW9EhPoc
rjgAoL5WoPQpcxRhceifxFkfecZg5YqK
=+nyf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


mgorny at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 1:13 PM

Post #17 of 68 (1207 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:59:40 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh [at] googlemail> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
> Markos Chandras <hwoarang [at] gentoo> wrote:
> > Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> > software that nobody forces you to use.
>
> Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe the
> issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical
> integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of
> software that we would prefer not to.

No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven before,
there are always alternatives.


--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


ciaran.mccreesh at googlemail

May 10, 2012, 1:14 PM

Post #18 of 68 (1207 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:13:33 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny [at] gentoo> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
> > Markos Chandras <hwoarang [at] gentoo> wrote:
> > > Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> > > software that nobody forces you to use.
> >
> > Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe
> > the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and vertical
> > integration means we are in effect forced to use rather a lot of
> > software that we would prefer not to.
>
> No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven
> before, there are always alternatives.

That's a somewhat disingenuous claim when the alternatives are moving
steadily towards "don't use Linux at all" or "use the full GnomeOS
stack".

--
Ciaran McCreesh
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


mgorny at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 1:23 PM

Post #19 of 68 (1208 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:14:33 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh [at] googlemail> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:13:33 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny [at] gentoo> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:02 +0100
> > > Markos Chandras <hwoarang [at] gentoo> wrote:
> > > > Make a constructive criticism if you really need to rant about
> > > > software that nobody forces you to use.
> > >
> > > Not that I agree with anything Fabio has ever said, but I believe
> > > the issue under discussion here is that tight coupling and
> > > vertical integration means we are in effect forced to use rather
> > > a lot of software that we would prefer not to.
> >
> > No, I don't think you are forced to use anything. As was proven
> > before, there are always alternatives.
>
> That's a somewhat disingenuous claim when the alternatives are moving
> steadily towards "don't use Linux at all" or "use the full GnomeOS
> stack".

Then go rant upstream about it. Or another upstream. Or do something
useful yourself.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


lxnay at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 1:48 PM

Post #20 of 68 (1206 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang [at] gentoo> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
>
> I sincerely hope someone has "hacked" into your account and he is
> writing on your behalf. This sort of trash talk does not belong to a
> public Gentoo mailing list. Make a constructive criticism if you
> really need to rant about software that nobody forces you to use.

No, this was really me. Forgive me for the rant, but the problem here
is real and no, the alternative would be either giving up with the
Linux stack or living with unreliable, overengineered software. I
don't see any other viable alternative.

Just answer my question, what is going to happen the day udev will
require systemd in order to work properly?

On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by
Linux Kernel people.

>
> - --
> Regards,
> Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPrB0WAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCFGYQAJiKzJ6RUYrkCswRBeWFk9Vn
> 6kOybbC9nn8LgQuoSjlNXWQ2jm5qqYEWhwzmFJMaeYJ7vpaVNL9nDTslloiXiw46
> 2dEjBUyXzmx90VIAvAvos3lec2C45vHXUYwjCp8VfwIfL+syPfb0wIXIn+RETAHg
> 2c4vyPRvv145zCPRkdF/b0GV4ai6JozRTrUOn2dobEs2SaqadqY4cw5uj1P47Msd
> Jezdz4MaPUPf16q0CoK6yi4U0jkzEqGtJbinHT4ib9PMhYX8WXjJtLloaBiQk01l
> bKNJWOAMIEpWK6dD2rko5pY4igS9ccbFCLlEDnELQBSHXDGAmarmGRlN6C/qVasY
> 019n3fSUsLt+kMeH2WgfmmXViyBgPeQxMY0E4HVkV+ztwNp3by8gG3jtuQeX+Kij
> WaECR/2/DwUTU+kLLkkEa2FZSrg8xwG3Ty5SpCAVQWcJIn3L1tziD58kt1DtpJjs
> jt0bV1eT2JnxL4v7GopxUI55n4bmqqzRP7SebkK4B7AOlae1fxjukqpNC6s6oTgc
> CBoWiJ7DkRbcTk+ww+MF+xUCmYrqPFlf8aQ8+j16LogaTCeV09QIhAqUKkcQB8Lx
> k6gGD6H5elPsYDm1gP/wBe1WEe6zLXDLd6LFiEYKHjyiznGDs1BAEk0oJMbob5I3
> HbAYiBP8P7D7FBosO7oj
> =INQn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



--
Fabio Erculiani


antarus at gentoo

May 10, 2012, 4:41 PM

Post #21 of 68 (1211 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Fabio Erculiani <lxnay [at] gentoo> wrote:
> I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
> right, after all.
> Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
> systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
> choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
> instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
> through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
> ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.

Er, the source is open, so choice is always there. What I think your
complaint is the fact that it used to be easy to do those things
(because upstream supported those options and USE flags exposed them
to you) and now upstream is not supporting those options and there is
no easy way to remove the dependencies without doing a bunch of work.

> If you want to bring complexity but you end up not being able to
> handle it, then you're not a really good engineer, IMHO.

I don't think anyone expects complexity to come bug-free. Cathedral
and the Bazaar? Release Early and Release Often? I expect the software
to reach a stable state in a reasonable amount of time given the
complexity involved.

>
> Having said that, I also wonder where's the lovely modularity the
> various *nix platforms had. If this is the actual direction of Linux
> Foundation, Redhat and Canonical, I am worried that Linux would end up
> being an OSX-wannabe.

The problem as I understand it is that you want other people to write
software that meets your needs and it turns out that the world doesn't
always work that way.

You can fork the software you hate (using versions before you hated
it) or you can write your own software (like mdev + busybox) to
replace the hated components. Both of those things are actually
somewhat useful. Complaining about how some random people on the
internet don't write software that you find palatable is just silly.

> Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the
> one of the majority of users I've been talking with.
> I am not against changes, I am actually in favor of them, but only
> when they really make sense and solve problems, which it doesn't seem
> the case lately.
>
> I didn't want to offend anyone, but just having fun (sigh) of IMHO bad
> design decisions.
> --
> Fabio Erculiani
>


1i5t5.duncan at cox

May 10, 2012, 5:59 PM

Post #22 of 68 (1210 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Fabio Erculiani posted on Thu, 10 May 2012 22:48:29 +0200 as excerpted:

> On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by
> Linux Kernel people.

hwoarang is a kernel person?

If you note, gregkh didn't post that. I can't agree with udev/systemd
integration, but it's worth noting that gregkh has for the most part
stayed out of that debate, and simply stated where he sees udev going, as
an upstream person who thus speaks with authority on the subject.

It may very well be that a fork is thus required. I guess we wait and
see. But I don't see the kde folks being willingly subsumed into a
gnomeos black hole, and time and again, floss history has demonstrated
that when there's an immediate need, forks do occur. Both gnome and kde
have their forks in recent history, xorg is a fork, there's the glibc and
gcc history, etc. If integration gets too close, a fork /will/ happen.

But that history is available to everyone and the wise will take heed.
Meanwhile, for the moment at least, upstream udev and systemd have both
taken pains to state that while they're going to ship in a unified
tarball, at least for now, udev will remain buildable on its own,
SPECIFICALLY to support folks not ready to go systemd just yet. So
there's still hope.

And 3-5 years is an eternity in an ecosystem such as the FLOSS world,
evolving at the speed of the net! Looking back from there, it's quite
possible this debate will look petty and short-sighted, regardless of how
things ultimately turn out.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


1i5t5.duncan at cox

May 10, 2012, 6:27 PM

Post #23 of 68 (1209 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

David Leverton posted on Thu, 10 May 2012 19:57:30 +0100 as excerpted:

> Greg KH wrote:
>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to
>> switch to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no
>> one is stopping you.
>
> Or alternatively, the people who hate Unix could move to some other OS
> that suites them better, rather than trying to destroy what everyone
> else is perfectly happy with.

I see the "hate Unix" angle tho I'd call it a bit strong...

But trying to destroy what everyone else is perfectly happy with??

How is simply writing some software, which after all is FLOSS and which
nobody is forced to use, "destroying"? They're taking their own software
where their vision points it, no more, no less. I don't really agree
with where it's going either, but that's part of the very freedom of the
FLOSS community we're all a part of. Others can fork the software or
provide less integrated substitutes, if desired. Meanwhile, if it's what
other coders choose to build on, well, they're free to do that too. It
doesn't mean I have to use their software!

FWIW, that's one reason I'm no longer using kmail, for instance. When
kmail akonadified, I tried it, then switched to claws-mail. It's ALSO one
reason I'm using gentoo, I get to choose whether I build kde with akonadi
and semantic-desktop support, or not. And I choose not. I see the kdepim
folks vision, and they're free to pursue it, but their path and my path
simply diverged, that's all. Kde runs SO much nicer without the weight
of semantic-desktop dragging it down.

And if the systemd and udev path fully merge, I'll have a choice at that
point. If systemd looks mature and stable enough at that point to be
used on my system, I'll probably try it. I might like it. =:^) Or, like
akonadified kmail, I may find it a rube goldberg of a system that I'd
rather stay away from. Given history, I'm sure there will be alternate
solutions available, tho it'll no doubt take some serious work and
adaptation on my part to switch.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


1i5t5.duncan at cox

May 10, 2012, 7:53 PM

Post #24 of 68 (1208 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Duncan posted on Fri, 11 May 2012 00:59:22 +0000 as excerpted:

> Fabio Erculiani posted on Thu, 10 May 2012 22:48:29 +0200 as excerpted:
>
>> On a side note, I find it quite odd to be accused of trash talking by
>> Linux Kernel people.
>
> hwoarang is a kernel person?

FWIW, I see the gregkh post you were referring to, now. Odd indeed, tho
he just said rude, not trash talk.

FWIW2, I'd have probably included a "IME" (in my experience) disclaimer
to that failaudio, tho I don't disagree with that label. Toning down may
be worthwhile for all sides, tho. This isn't lkml and I don't think most
would want it to be.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


gregkh at gentoo

May 11, 2012, 5:39 PM

Post #25 of 68 (1198 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 01:44:53PM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
> > The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
> > should be ashamed of yourself.
> >
> > Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.
>
> You mean as unacceptable as calling C++ proponents "full of
> bullshit"[1], developers of another operating system "masturbating
> monkeys"[2] and security researchers as "people wanking around with
> their opinions"[3]?

Did I say any of that?

I have no idea why you are comparing me to anyone else. Who ever said
that those links are acceptable behavior either? I never did.

greg k-h


waltdnes at waltdnes

May 12, 2012, 7:24 PM

Post #26 of 68 (421 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:59:22AM +0000, Duncan wrote

> It may very well be that a fork is thus required. I guess we wait and
> see. But I don't see the kde folks being willingly subsumed into a
> gnomeos black hole, and time and again, floss history has demonstrated
> that when there's an immediate need, forks do occur. Both gnome and kde
> have their forks in recent history, xorg is a fork, there's the glibc and
> gcc history, etc. If integration gets too close, a fork /will/ happen.

There already is a lightweight udev implementation ("mdev") included
in busybox. Given busybox's philisophy and goals, we can be certain
that mdev will remain lightweight. I'm not a programmer or developer,
but I was annoyed enough to start what became
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev BTW, there is a sort of "udev rules"
equivalant. See http://git.busybox.net/busybox/plain/docs/mdev.txt

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes [at] waltdnes>


lu_zero at gentoo

May 14, 2012, 11:48 AM

Post #27 of 68 (427 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/05/12 09:54, Olivier Crête wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 06:34 +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
>> right, after all.
>
> I would express my opinion about Fabio made software, but I've never
> heard of any.

Not his fault, he wrote plenty of interesting stuff though.
Fabio attitude still isn't that horrible regarding feedbacks, Rigo got
created more or less because the previous UI got a sound "it sucks".

His quite short and a bit extreme reaction probably is due having lots
of unhappy user complaining at him for some issue with avahi (hangs in
bonjour now and then) and pulse (skype freezing randomly anyone).

>> Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
>> systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
>> choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
>> instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
>> through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
>> ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.
>
> Maybe the reason every sensible distribution uses Avahi, Pulseaudio, etc
> is because they are better than other solutions out there?

If there are solutions somebody will use them, if people are aware of
them and doesn't get too hard. I did like the concept about pulse and
even wrote support for pulse in a certain fringe software you might use.

The pulse concept is quite good, some corner cases and some design
issues make it annoying at time. The fact some of them are consider
"features" or "design" obviously make the whole thing less nice.

> Do you think is a fast conspiracy to make your life suck? I believe
> engineers in every distribution are looking at what's available and
> picking what they think is the best solution, and it turns out Lennart
> is pretty damn good at making useful software.

No, he is pretty damn good in getting interesting concepts, having
people sold on them and then you need 5 years to have the audio seldom
crash, bonjour seldom kill pidgin and so on.

Till it is some minor annoyance that is comparable to not having the
feature or the same to other feature provider (dmix isn't exactly great
as well) you surely can live with it.

> Was alsa always working? I remember spending hours trying to figure out
> the right control in alsamixer and fighting with alsa's arcane
> configuration languages (it has 3 different ones). And how do you deal
> with modern technologies like Bluetooth audio without Pulseaudio
> exactly?

I used to do that and it was working sort of fine even if it was
crashing in dbus...

>> Of course, I am not only bringing my personal opinion here, but the
>> one of the majority of users I've been talking with.
>
> I think you only hear from users who like to complain, others are just
> happy that everything works for them thanks to Pulseaudio, systemd, etc.

As said, if they are minor annoyances most people would just cope with them.

A - "Skype hangs because pulse? oh well, let's reload it no biggie"
B - "AAaargh I missed the important confcall because #%$#@ skype hang
due pulse, I hate YOU Lennart!"

A and B are different reactions from the same small issue.

> If you think that Lennart does not solve problems, maybe it's because
> you don't even understand what the problems were? For example, I
> encourage you to read about how the dynamic latency in PA allows for
> lower power usage or how modern audio hardware is designed to use a
> userspace sound server, etc.

I recall when the whole thing got initially reported and it was "pulse
eats my batter" and if you consider that the stock pulse on ubuntu
oneric eats about a *least* 10% cpu on imx51 due funny resampling loops
you know something needed some more attention. I guess I'm digressing.

The main issue is that udev best replacement so far is mdev plus some
additional helpers to let applications using libudev or the dbus
interface still get compatibility.

So having udev merge with systemd is quite in the shovel meet throat side.

People that had and have some bad experience with pulse and avahi or
directly with Lennart stubborn and abrasive personality can be *quite*
concerned about this "vertical" and linux-only approach.

If you consider that in 2 weeks the whole thing went from "udev moves to
systemd since is easier for us, but not be concerned udev can build
stand alone" to "udev stand alone is unsupported" you can see that isn't
that simple and lots of people might start to get angry.

lu

- --

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk+xU3sACgkQ6Ex4woTpDjTNewCfU5cahmNPbgKQJt/2GkbVBh4o
F1gAnjheSaIVRF55g1//9wu5dFe8ga3w
=FlU7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


slong at rathaus

May 16, 2012, 9:16 PM

Post #28 of 68 (415 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Greg KH wrote:
> Steven J Long wrote:
>> And that is what we were discussing: possible future coupling between the
>> two, which is much easier to do when the sources are part of the
>> same package.
..
>> OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a
>> design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close
>> integration with the underlying udev implementation.
>
> Nope, can't make that assurance at all.
>
> Actually, maybe I can make the opposite assurance

Well, thanks for being straightforward about it: clearly you're keeping the
option of udev requiring systemd open, and in fact want to move toward that.

> , let's see what the future brings... :)
>
Yeah, we'll see :) You have udev working nicely, fulfilling a whole load of
use-cases, and now you want to upwardly-couple to er, a service-manager.
Running as pid 1, no less, even though it's not necessary. (I predict that
latter decision will get reversed in a while, just like a /usr partition
went from an anachronism to a grand new design, and xml config formats are
no longer talked about; thankfully binary logs got slammed back out the door
in-kernel at least[1].)

Not build another thing utilising udev and dbus, not even one closely
integrated, but upwardly-couple every Linux system to that new userspace
project. Good luck with that.

steveL.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)


slong at rathaus

May 16, 2012, 9:39 PM

Post #29 of 68 (418 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Alec Warner wrote:

> Fabio Erculiani <lxnay [at] gentoo> wrote:
>> I think expressing my own opinion about Lennart-made software is my
>> right, after all.
>> Firstly, it's almost impossible nowadays to avoid including avahi,
>> systemd and pulseaudio into a desktop distro so, there is no real
>> choice. This issue became a sensible matter for those users who for
>> instance, wanted to have a silly mp3 player working without going
>> through the PA nonsense, really missing the old
>> ALSA-oh-it-was-always-working days.
>
> Er, the source is open, so choice is always there. What I think your
> complaint is the fact that it used to be easy to do those things
> (because upstream supported those options and USE flags exposed them
> to you) and now upstream is not supporting those options and there is
> no easy way to remove the dependencies without doing a bunch of work.
>
I think it's more a matter of process. These changes force major userspace
changes, which since they are not a matter of ABI export, don't really
concern kernel devs (after all, they design for userspace to do crazy stuff,
or their OS is not robust: beyond ABI stability, the contract they fulfil,
in the main they don't really care what happens there.)

However the changes are forced on admins and users, unless we take on a
development effort which means we're no longer just admins or users. And
yeah, people are clearly looking at doing that with mdev, though we'd rather
not have to be forced into that.

>> If you want to bring complexity but you end up not being able to
>> handle it, then you're not a really good engineer, IMHO.
>
> I don't think anyone expects complexity to come bug-free. Cathedral
> and the Bazaar? Release Early and Release Often? I expect the software
> to reach a stable state in a reasonable amount of time given the
> complexity involved.
>
The way to handle complexity is with small, modular components that are
loosely-coupled and cohesive. AKA "Do one thing, and do it well." Like udev
has been doing for quite a while.

>>
>> Having said that, I also wonder where's the lovely modularity the
>> various *nix platforms had. If this is the actual direction of Linux
>> Foundation, Redhat and Canonical, I am worried that Linux would end up
>> being an OSX-wannabe.
>
> The problem as I understand it is that you want other people to write
> software that meets your needs and it turns out that the world doesn't
> always work that way.
>
> You can fork the software you hate (using versions before you hated
> it) or you can write your own software (like mdev + busybox) to
> replace the hated components. Both of those things are actually
> somewhat useful. Complaining about how some random people on the
> internet don't write software that you find palatable is just silly.
>
It's not about that: the point is that massive changes are being pushed
through, and the people who actually have to implement them in the real-
world haven't been consulted. When they are, after their concerns about
administration (you know, their jobs) are dismissed and they're asked for
technical reasons, they draw attention to Unix principles, simply because
they have been proven over decades to be the best basis for software-
engineering.

And please: "random people on the internet"? That's not how I'd describe
upstream udev or kernel maintainers. Or is this your "it's the developer's
playground" philosophy again?

Simply put, there is no space in kernel mailing-lists, nor in upstream udev
et al, to have this discussion. It affects Gentoo users most, because we are
far more likely to run using custom-compiled kernels with base system
modules like motherboard disk-controllers built-in, and to have setup eg
/usr on LVM in accordance with docs, and since we use a rolling-release we
haven't needed to change what wasn't broken.

Nor do many of us think we've heard any benefit to outweigh the
disadvantages. For instance, we've been told several times that a) an
initramfs is the new root, in that we don't need rescue tools on an easy to
mount root anymore, our initramfs will be a souped-up rescue-shell; and b)
that an initramfs is easy to set up and maintain, and should typically only
be a few hundred kilobytes (so it's not going to bloat the boot process.)

Everything I've seen of people's configs in forum posts about setting up
initramfs, and heard of the process, makes me think it's going to be a
custom design per-Gentoo user, and tweaking what's in there is going to be
part of standard setup and ongoing maintenance. Forgive me for assessing
that as a regression in usability.

Ultimately of course, udev maintainers will do what they want. That's fine,
and I'll shut up about the whole thing as my concerns are on the record:
just so long as no-one pretends they've justified the breaches of basic
design principles.

Regards,
Steve.
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)


ryao at gentoo

Nov 17, 2012, 11:54 PM

Post #30 of 68 (360 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>> I foresee a new udev fork then.
>
> Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
> created it.
>
> Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly
> encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone
> involved.
>
>> If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable.
>
> That's an odd transition...
>
>> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending
>> on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.
>
> Hyperbole, how nice :(
>
>> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
>
> The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
> should be ashamed of yourself.
>
> Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.
>
> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
> stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
> and needs to stop right now.
>
> greg k-h
>

Greg, would you clarify what you meant by this?

Your recent comments suggest to me that you did not mean what I thought
you meant.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


gregkh at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:08 AM

Post #31 of 68 (360 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
> >> I foresee a new udev fork then.
> >
> > Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
> > created it.
> >
> > Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly
> > encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone
> > involved.
> >
> >> If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable.
> >
> > That's an odd transition...
> >
> >> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending
> >> on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.
> >
> > Hyperbole, how nice :(
> >
> >> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
> >
> > The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
> > should be ashamed of yourself.
> >
> > Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.
> >
> > No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
> > There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
> > to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
> > stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
> > bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
> > and needs to stop right now.
> >
> > greg k-h
> >
>
> Greg, would you clarify what you meant by this?

Meant by what part of the above response? Written 6 months ago?

> Your recent comments suggest to me that you did not mean what I thought
> you meant.

What did you think I meant about what?

Again, I have no objection to people forking projects, it's great, and
fun to watch happen. Fork away on your own site, with whom ever you
want to.

But if this fork is now the "official Gentoo fork", owned by the Gentoo
Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to
take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I
have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer.

And that is how this thread started, I wanted to know what was the
resolution of the council meeting with the very unclear and vague
meeting minutes. I have yet to get that answer, which is troubling.

thanks,

greg k-h


ryao at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:10 AM

Post #32 of 68 (360 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 11/18/2012 03:08 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:54:38AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> On 05/09/2012 06:36 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
>>>> I foresee a new udev fork then.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to do so, the code has been open since the first day I
>>> created it.
>>>
>>> Remember, forks are good, there's nothing wrong with them, I strongly
>>> encourage people to do them if they wish to, it benefits everyone
>>> involved.
>>>
>>>> If udev is going to end up like avahi is, this is *highly* probable.
>>>
>>> That's an odd transition...
>>>
>>>> With "avahi is ..." I actually mean, one single tarball blob depending
>>>> on the whole world and its solar system and galaxy.
>>>
>>> Hyperbole, how nice :(
>>>
>>>> Please stop throwing lennartware at people. FailAudio has been enough, thanks.
>>>
>>> The use of these terms is both rude and totally uncalled for. You
>>> should be ashamed of yourself.
>>>
>>> Seriously, that's unacceptable behavior from anyone.
>>>
>>> No one forces you to use any of this software if you do not want to.
>>> There are lots of other operating systems out there, feel free to switch
>>> to them if you do not like the way this one is working out, no one is
>>> stopping you. But for you to disparage someone who has given immense
>>> bodies of work to the community, and you, for free, is horrible behavior
>>> and needs to stop right now.
>>>
>>> greg k-h
>>>
>>
>> Greg, would you clarify what you meant by this?
>
> Meant by what part of the above response? Written 6 months ago?
>
>> Your recent comments suggest to me that you did not mean what I thought
>> you meant.
>
> What did you think I meant about what?
>
> Again, I have no objection to people forking projects, it's great, and
> fun to watch happen. Fork away on your own site, with whom ever you
> want to.
>
> But if this fork is now the "official Gentoo fork", owned by the Gentoo
> Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to
> take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I
> have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer.
>
> And that is how this thread started, I wanted to know what was the
> resolution of the council meeting with the very unclear and vague
> meeting minutes. I have yet to get that answer, which is troubling.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.

This will be an official Gentoo project when we make the announcement in
the next few days. That makes it one project of many. GLEP 0039 clearly
states how this works. If you are unhappy with GLEP 0039, then you
should discuss that with the council.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


gregkh at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:19 AM

Post #33 of 68 (359 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.

It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation
copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by
you.

I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an
official fork :)

> This will be an official Gentoo project when we make the announcement in
> the next few days. That makes it one project of many. GLEP 0039 clearly
> states how this works. If you are unhappy with GLEP 0039, then you
> should discuss that with the council.

I fail to see how 0039 has to do with this, please explain. I also
don't see the copyright issue here, nor do I see where the decision of
the council was made.

Again, that's my original question, "What is the decision of the council
regarding this issue"?

thanks,

greg k-h


ryao at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:19 AM

Post #34 of 68 (359 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 11/18/2012 03:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
>> You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.
>
> It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation
> copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by
> you.
>
> I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an
> official fork :)
>
>> This will be an official Gentoo project when we make the announcement in
>> the next few days. That makes it one project of many. GLEP 0039 clearly
>> states how this works. If you are unhappy with GLEP 0039, then you
>> should discuss that with the council.
>
> I fail to see how 0039 has to do with this, please explain. I also
> don't see the copyright issue here, nor do I see where the decision of
> the council was made.
>
> Again, that's my original question, "What is the decision of the council
> regarding this issue"?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

I am sick of the harassment that I have received from you and a few
others both in public and in private. The public branch has been
deleted. Come back after we have done our first release. Otherwise,
leave us alone. That is all that I have to say.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 18, 2012, 12:21 AM

Post #35 of 68 (361 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/2012 00:08, Greg KH wrote:
> But if this fork is now the "official Gentoo fork", owned by the Gentoo
> Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to
> take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I
> have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer.

Please note that I would be the first one, from a QA point of view, to
raise a huge question mark if somebody is planning to make this the
default anytime soon.

You want to keep it around as an option? Sure, feel free.

Moving as default? Over my dead public key.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


gregkh at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:27 AM

Post #36 of 68 (358 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.
>
> It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation
> copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by
> you.
>
> I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an
> official fork :)

Oh, and the README file says it is a Gentoo project:
This is a Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently
being done with openrc. However, we aim to be distro neutral
and welcome contribution from others using a variety of system
initializations. We also aim towards POSIX compliance.

So why would I think otherwise?

thanks,

greg k-h


pacho at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:38 AM

Post #37 of 68 (364 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 00:27 -0800, Greg KH escribió:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:19:21AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 03:10:08AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
> > > You are the one claiming that this is our official fork. None of us are.
> >
> > It's on the Gentoo github site, and it has the Gentoo Foundation
> > copyright all over all of the files in one of the branches, reviewed by
> > you.
> >
> > I think I would be pretty foolish if I somehow thought it was _not_ an
> > official fork :)
>
> Oh, and the README file says it is a Gentoo project:
> This is a Gentoo sponsored project and testing is currently
> being done with openrc. However, we aim to be distro neutral
> and welcome contribution from others using a variety of system
> initializations. We also aim towards POSIX compliance.
>
> So why would I think otherwise?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
>

Looks like we think different about what a "Gentoo project" means, lets
read:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/herds-and-projects/index.html

That would explain why both, eudev and systemd "Gentoo projects" can
coexist:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/systemd/index.xml
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


ssuominen at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 12:49 AM

Post #38 of 68 (358 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/12 10:21, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 00:08, Greg KH wrote:
>> But if this fork is now the "official Gentoo fork", owned by the Gentoo
>> Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to
>> take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I
>> have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer.
>
> Please note that I would be the first one, from a QA point of view, to
> raise a huge question mark if somebody is planning to make this the
> default anytime soon.
>
> You want to keep it around as an option? Sure, feel free.
>
> Moving as default? Over my dead public key.
>

Amen.


mva at mva

Nov 18, 2012, 3:11 AM

Post #39 of 68 (351 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

By the way, Diego, what is you current point of view on Gentoo default
init system?
i.e., what do you personally prefer to see as default init here: SystemD
or OpenRC?


[.Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think
that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are
on "non-SysD-related udev" side.]

And, if anyone is interested in my opinion: I *HATE* when somebody (will
it be distro maintainers or RedHat corporation) forcing me their opinion
on _what_ should I use and _how_ should I use this. Thats why I hate
Ubuntu, Debian, CentOS, RHEL, SuSE and so on.
Thats why I'm using Gentoo and Gentoo-derivatives (Sabayon, for
example) for almost 10 years.
Thats why I am an evangelist of Gentoo and it's derivatives.
More of that, thats why Daniel Robbins created Gentoo itself.
So, I really hope, that Gentoo will not obey RedHat's will and will not
force SystemD as default init system, and not drop pretty OpenRC to
trash. And I hope, that ryao's eudev will be most used (if not default)
variant of udev, since I'm sad with last vanilla udev functionality
"downgrades".



--
Best,
mva



18.11.2012 15:21, Diego Elio Pettenò пишет:
> On 18/11/2012 00:08, Greg KH wrote:
>> But if this fork is now the "official Gentoo fork", owned by the Gentoo
>> Foundation, and it's the way forward that Gentoo the distro is going to
>> take with regards to how the boot process works on the system, then I
>> have something to say about it, as it affects me, a Gentoo developer.
>
> Please note that I would be the first one, from a QA point of view, to
> raise a huge question mark if somebody is planning to make this the
> default anytime soon.
>
> You want to keep it around as an option? Sure, feel free.
>
> Moving as default? Over my dead public key.
>
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


rich0 at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 4:26 AM

Post #40 of 68 (352 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov <mva [at] mva> wrote:
> So, I really hope, that Gentoo will not obey RedHat's will and will not
> force SystemD as default init system, and not drop pretty OpenRC to
> trash. And I hope, that ryao's eudev will be most used (if not default)
> variant of udev, since I'm sad with last vanilla udev functionality
> "downgrades".

I'm sure all of the options will be offered as options for as long as
people care to take care of them. With the number of anti-systemd
posts on -dev I don't see openrc going away anytime soon.

I'm sure the default will stay as it is unless a substantial majority
want it otherwise - we can't go flipping that every time the latest
whatever comes along.

And frankly, I could care less what it is since I can change it. If I
wanted to be rigidly bound by defaults there are a lot of distros
easier to maintain than Gentoo. iOS comes to mind. :)

I run OpenRC on my main box, and systemd on a VM hosted within it. I
wouldn't be surprised if I move to systemd some day as my experience
with it has been a good one, but I'll use the tools I think are best
for the problem at hand, and not what somebody else chooses for me,
and I'll be the last to force a choice on anybody else. That said,
Gentoo can only offer the options that devs step up and maintain, so
if you care greatly about something start writing patches.

That is my biggest concern over a lot of this mess - and Greg KH did a
good job putting it into words in the six-month old thread that was
just resurrected. Lennart et al only have the power you give to them
- anybody can fork at any time or keep an old project going. If you
don't like Gnome 3 then start writing code for Gnome 2. This is all
FREE software, and it only exists when people take the time to write
it. If nobody bothers to maintain the alternatives, then I guess
collectively we're going to be stuck with whatever people take the
time to write.

So, feel free to offer advice/comments/etc. However, let's keep the
tone civil. Unless you're their employer, the guys writing the
software you don't like owe you precisely nothing.

Rich


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 18, 2012, 7:04 AM

Post #41 of 68 (345 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/2012 03:11, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>
> [.Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think
> that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are
> on "non-SysD-related udev" side.]

The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything
I've been doing lately. As many other developers can easily attest, I
don't use systemd and I'm not planning to use it anytime soon.

So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected.

And let this be a reminder that you can still disagree with the "systemd
everywhere, and only" crowd while still not becoming laughing stock.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Attachments: signature.asc (0.54 KB)


ssuominen at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 7:16 AM

Post #42 of 68 (347 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/12 17:04, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 03:11, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>>
>> [.Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think
>> that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are
>> on "non-SysD-related udev" side.]
>
> The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything
> I've been doing lately. As many other developers can easily attest, I
> don't use systemd and I'm not planning to use it anytime soon.
>
> So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected.

Same here. I haven't even tried it and got no plans to.

I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
simplifying the system.
The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from
larger partitions, the need has long past.
Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML
either.

- Samuli


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 18, 2012, 7:31 AM

Post #43 of 68 (347 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/2012 07:16, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
>
> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
> simplifying the system.
> The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from
> larger partitions, the need has long past.
> Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML
> either.

Ibidem.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


grobian at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 7:32 AM

Post #44 of 68 (351 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18-11-2012 17:16:18 +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML
> either.

No need for a reason.

It is a fact that it is in use *right now*.

(Existing systems/installs that are not to be phased out anywhere near
soon.)

Fabian

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


mva at mva

Nov 18, 2012, 7:34 AM

Post #45 of 68 (346 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable
be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin -> /bin, /usr/lib
-> lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just
because of disk space exhaustion.


18.11.2012 22:16, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> On 18/11/12 17:04, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
>> On 18/11/2012 03:11, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>>>
>>> [.Just asking because all you angry answers to some devs make me think
>>> that you're on SysD side, when tons of Gentoo users and Gentoo devs are
>>> on "non-SysD-related udev" side.]
>>
>> The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything
>> I've been doing lately. As many other developers can easily attest, I
>> don't use systemd and I'm not planning to use it anytime soon.
>>
>> So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected.
>
> Same here. I haven't even tried it and got no plans to.
>
> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
> simplifying the system.
> The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from
> larger partitions, the need has long past.
> Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML
> either.
>
> - Samuli
>
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 18, 2012, 7:42 AM

Post #46 of 68 (345 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/2012 07:34, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable
> be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin -> /bin, /usr/lib
> -> lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just
> because of disk space exhaustion.

Well, the objection to that was what actually "caused" this udev fork, so...

Also, I doubt anybody would argue that it's not commutative (move to
/usr, move to /) — it's just pragmatic, most stuff uses /usr anyway as
base, so the move / -> /usr is infinitely less painful than /usr -> /.

To me, I don't care. I haven't even used /boot in years.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Attachments: signature.asc (0.54 KB)


mva at mva

Nov 18, 2012, 7:43 AM

Post #47 of 68 (348 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

> The fact you're asking means you really haven't been following anything
> I've been doing lately.
Nope ;) I knew that, but as far as I read some of your emails, it was
thoughts that you protect udev+sysD integration and followed udev's
functionality downgrade.

> So your whole rant picking up on my post is completely misdirected.

Sorry, if I write it in that manner, that last part looks like adressed
to you. I tried to write it mostly for GregKH and people, that protect
SystemD-way distro-development path.

> And let this be a reminder that you can still disagree with the "systemd
> everywhere, and only" crowd while still not becoming laughing stock.

And, by the way, I doubt, that people "laugh" about eudev (previously
named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo
devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and
maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket)
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 18, 2012, 7:47 AM

Post #48 of 68 (348 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/2012 07:43, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> And, by the way, I doubt, that people "laugh" about eudev (previously
> named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo
> devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and
> maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket)

People _are_ laughing at it. On G+, on Twitter, I suppose identi.ca and
IRC as well.

But yes, many more can't understand that... and neither do I.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Attachments: signature.asc (0.54 KB)


lu_zero at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 7:50 AM

Post #49 of 68 (345 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 11/18/2012 04:34 PM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> To be honest, in my opinion, «killing of separate /usr» can reasonable
> be continued by moving all it's content to / (/usr/bin -> /bin, /usr/lib
> -> lib, and so on) in despite of all objections, as it was invented just
> because of disk space exhaustion.

And since we have lots of wonderful file systems, a neat and interesting
device mapper and a plethora of fun way to shot ourselves in the foot
not only you have a separate /usr but even fun separate /usr/bin from
/usr/share and other strange layout that some people prepared to solve
some of their problems.

The radical solution is to have a rich early boot able to do this kind
of setup, for the transition you might want to not have init and udev
non-workable because somebody decided that is useful using glib or some
other library residing in /usr/

lu


grobian at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 7:51 AM

Post #50 of 68 (350 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18-11-2012 07:42:40 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Also, I doubt anybody would argue that it's not commutative (move to
> /usr, move to /) — it's just pragmatic, most stuff uses /usr anyway as
> base, so the move / -> /usr is infinitely less painful than /usr -> /.

You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


grobian at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 7:54 AM

Post #51 of 68 (376 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18-11-2012 07:47:22 -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 18/11/2012 07:43, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> > And, by the way, I doubt, that people "laugh" about eudev (previously
> > named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo
> > devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and
> > maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket)
>
> People _are_ laughing at it. On G+, on Twitter, I suppose identi.ca and
> IRC as well.

It's your choice to participate on those social platforms. Please don't
make it our problem. It doesn't add anything useful to this discussion.

Fabian

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


lu_zero at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 7:56 AM

Post #52 of 68 (376 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 11/18/2012 04:47 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> But yes, many more can't understand that... and neither do I.

Then would be nice if everybody shuts up, let people play with their
toys and if something useful happens evaluate the result.

According to the people that asked me to help the whole thing would had
been an experiment to see if would be possible to have a smaller and
cleaner udev.

I liked the idea since I like alternatives and I consider many choices
from upstream a tad narrow minded (beside the entertaining posts from
Linus about their bug management).

Nobody wanted hype there, just more people willing to chip in some time
and effort to get there.

lu


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 18, 2012, 8:00 AM

Post #53 of 68 (373 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 18/11/2012 07:54, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> It's your choice to participate on those social platforms. Please don't
> make it our problem. It doesn't add anything useful to this discussion.

It adds. Because, while I don't know about you, I rely on Gentoo on my
job. And many others do, too.

And making Gentoo the laughing stock (_again_, I'd add) is something
that is detrimental to all of us there, as it makes it harder to let it
be seen for what it is (a very real, quit reliable distribution) rather
than a juvenile effort to be different from the rest.

How long did it take us to get rid of the "Gentoo is rice" fame? Do we
want to go back to that? _I_ don't think so.

So yes, the "social platforms" matter and are our problem. And it appals
me that a member of the council can't see that.

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
Attachments: signature.asc (0.54 KB)


lxnay at gentoo

Nov 18, 2012, 8:14 AM

Post #54 of 68 (372 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

It depends on who is actually laughing I'd say.

just my 0.01c.

--
Fabio Erculiani


1i5t5.duncan at cox

Nov 18, 2012, 8:49 AM

Post #55 of 68 (374 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Rich Freeman posted on Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:26:17 -0500 as excerpted:

> I'm sure all of the options will be offered as options for as long as
> people care to take care of them. With the number of anti-systemd posts
> on -dev I don't see openrc going away anytime soon.
>
> I'm sure the default will stay as it is unless a substantial majority
> want it otherwise - we can't go flipping that every time the latest
> whatever comes along.

[.For close followers of the discussion, this is a repeat. But it's worth
repeating in the hope that the message gets out to gentoo users who don't
follow so closely.]

Based on previous posts from other gentoo users, this point seems to have
been lost on some, but it's absolutely true. As I've pointed out before
as well, even if by some miracle all of gentoo turned on a dime and
became a virulently pro-systemd distro today, in practice it'd take time
for that to work into the implementation. We're looking at probably a
year minimum, more practically closer to two, before end-users could
really be "forced" over, and that's if somehow the policy changed on a
dime, today, which isn't going to happen. So even if gentoo ultimately
heads that direction, and I think the default _may_ _eventually_ be
systemd but with *SERIOUS* stress on BOTH _MAY_ and _EVENTUALLY_, in
reality we're looking at 3-5 years.

And in the free software world, a _LOT_ happens in 3-5 years! So much so
that five years really is at the horizon in any case -- there will be
enough currently unforeseen changes between now and then that it's really
hard to predict anything out that far anyway, and MOST people attempting
to do so in anything but trivial ways will get MAJOR parts of their
prediction wrong, simply because events will overtake them.

> And frankly, I could care less what it is since I can change it. If I
> wanted to be rigidly bound by defaults there are a lot of distros easier
> to maintain than Gentoo. iOS comes to mind. :)

That's a point that should be near and dear to any serious gentooer's
heart! =:^)

> I run OpenRC on my main box, and systemd on a VM hosted within it. I
> wouldn't be surprised if I move to systemd some day as my experience
> with it has been a good one, but I'll use the tools I think are best for
> the problem at hand, and not what somebody else chooses for me, and I'll
> be the last to force a choice on anybody else.

With the previous caveats about trying to predict anything in the FLOSS
world too far out, in 2-3 years, I expect I'll be on systemd myself. But
there's no rush, and I intend to wait until it stabilizes somewhat,
first. At present it's simply evolving too fast for my tastes, for
something so system-basic. I enjoy running alphas and betas as much as
the next guy and it's a rare time indeed that I don't have /something/
not-absolutely stable running on my systems, but that doesn't mean I
want /all/ of my system unstable and shifting out from under me, and
system init is an area where I'm just not ready to make a change as big
as systemd, when it's still actively growing and changing at the rate it
seems to be doing so today.

That said, I _do_ run openrc-9999, mainly because I found the changes of
~arch openrc too coarse-grained and hard to troubleshoot when things go
wrong. By running the live-git version and examining git-whatchanged
every time I update, often looking at the diffs for individual commits, I
get the incremental changes as they come in, and can much faster pinpoint
where a particular problem is when I see it, making the necessary changes
locally and of course bug-filing upstream as I need to, to get it fixed.

But running a live-git version of something I'm already on, in ordered to
more closely follow individual commits and pinpoint and resolve bugs
faster, is quite different from deciding I'm going to switch to something
with as much churn as systemd seems to still have, engulfing and
extinguishing entire projects like some ravenous black hole or gray goo.
Yes, I expect at some point I'll be assimilated myself, but there's no
reason that point needs to be now, and the future where I expect it to
happen remains to be written, with a good chance the plot line will
change significantly between now and then, such that I may never be
assimilated after all. For all I know, the whole worldview will change
between now and then, and other events might well overtake this gray goo
that now seems to be engulfing everything that it touches, such that it
never does in fact engulf me and my systems.

> That said, Gentoo can
> only offer the options that devs step up and maintain, so if you care
> greatly about something start writing patches.

This too is a point that's often lost on people. Take kde as an
example. Yes, kde3 was relegated to the kde-sunset overlay, where it's
being maintained in some state by users (see the gentoo-desktop list for
the discussion on that, if interested). But that was simply because no
current gentoo devs were interested in maintaining it in-tree. All the
gentoo/kde folks were on kde4. If there had been active devs interested
in keeping a working kde3 in-tree, it would have stayed in-tree. Only
when the active gentoo dev interest fell below a sustainable level was it
removed, and even then, it's still in kde-sunset, because there's
sustainable interest at /that/ level.

The same of course applies to trinity, the still active fork from kde3.
I think it'd be great to have it in the gentoo tree again. But it's not
going to happen unless/until there's enough active gentoo devs interested
in making it happen to have it as a project.

And the same applies to systemd/udev. The choices available to gentoo
users are a direct reflection of the interest of gentoo devs. As it
happens, there's a couple gentoo devs with the interest and motivation to
have the systemd OPTION in gentoo, but that's exactly where it stands
ATM, a non-default OPTION. And that's exactly where it's likely to
remain for at least a few years, because the primary gentoo dev interest
still seems to be focused on openrc and a udev-alike that remains
sufficiently unentangled from systemd that it's still buildable (to some
degree) and runnable (to a much larger degree) on its own.

The only way that's going to change is if the critical level of interest
amongst gentoo devs changes. Thus, the way to either keep a gentoo
systemd default from happening, or increase the speed at which it
happens, and to maintain choice regardless of the default depending on
your own interest, is to do your part to ensure the critical level of
gentoo interest in your preferred outcome remains strong.

If current wider-Linux-and-FLOSS-universe trends continue, then at some
point, probably most gentoo devs will be interested in systemd, as it's
what they're familiar with from their previous and continuing outside-of-
gentoo experience. However, as I pointed out above, that's not a
particularly safe prediction to make, because gentoo as it is today is
rather far from that, and by the time it could reasonably get to that
point thru normal gentoo dev attrition and recruitment, the whole Linux/
FLOSS worldview may well have changed, and systemd/udev may well be as
much yesterday's news as the old kernel's even/odd stable/dev kernel
cycle, or the xfree86/xorg split before that, or the gcc/egcs split
before that, or...

> That is my biggest concern over a lot of this mess - and Greg KH did a
> good job putting it into words in the six-month old thread that was just
> resurrected. Lennart et al only have the power you give to them -
> anybody can fork at any time or keep an old project going. If you don't
> like Gnome 3 then start writing code for Gnome 2. This is all FREE
> software, and it only exists when people take the time to write it. If
> nobody bothers to maintain the alternatives, then I guess collectively
> we're going to be stuck with whatever people take the time to write.

This is simply reinforcing and underlining the above, only now we're
looking at the upstream level, not the gentoo/distro level.

> So, feel free to offer advice/comments/etc. However, let's keep the
> tone civil. Unless you're their employer, the guys writing the software
> you don't like owe you precisely nothing.

++ on keeping it civil! =:^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


1i5t5.duncan at cox

Nov 18, 2012, 9:19 AM

Post #56 of 68 (374 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:47:22 -0800 as excerpted:

> On 18/11/2012 07:43, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
>> And, by the way, I doubt, that people "laugh" about eudev (previously
>> named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo
>> devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and
>> maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket)
>
> People _are_ laughing at it. On G+, on Twitter, I suppose identi.ca and
> IRC as well.

There's worse things than being laughed it. In fact, what's the oft-used-
in-MS/Linux-context quote (Gandi if I'm not mistaken), something along
the lines of...

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win!

If they're laughing, they're beyond the ignore stage. And we see
evidence of the fight stage now too. If the idea behind that quote is
correct...

But regardless, there's quite some coding to do before we see.
Meanwhile, it may fizzle out, or other events may overtake. Anyway you
look at it tho, things could be interesting.

But there's still worse things than being laughed at. Gentoo continued
in spite of the ricer rep it once had, and this project seems to be being
blown WAY out of proportion in all KINDS of ways, but gentoo will still
continue, regardless.

(All that said, the copyright/legal thing is a bit concerning, but it
already seems to be on its way to being worked out, best I can tell, so
it too seems to have been blown way out of proportion, tho it may well
have been felt that was necessary in ordered to stress the gravity of the
situation. As many find out too late, legal isn't a laughing matter, but
regardless, that angle /does/ appear to be being addressed. The
others... let them laugh.)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


sionescu at cddr

Nov 18, 2012, 10:15 AM

Post #57 of 68 (372 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 17:19 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Diego Elio Pettenò posted on Sun, 18 Nov 2012 07:47:22 -0800 as excerpted:
>
> > On 18/11/2012 07:43, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> >> And, by the way, I doubt, that people "laugh" about eudev (previously
> >> named udev-ng) creation. Mostly they just can't understand why gentoo
> >> devs created third udev's fork, where it was already done (and
> >> maintained) fork for LFS (somewhere on bitbucket)
> >
> > People _are_ laughing at it. On G+, on Twitter, I suppose identi.ca and
> > IRC as well.
>
> There's worse things than being laughed it. In fact, what's the oft-used-
> in-MS/Linux-context quote (Gandi if I'm not mistaken), something along
> the lines of...
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
> you win!
>
> If they're laughing, they're beyond the ignore stage. And we see
> evidence of the fight stage now too. If the idea behind that quote is
> correct...

People keep repeating that quote implying that whenever somebody laughs
at an idea it's because the idea is worth something, but that's
illogical and in fact false: just because B(worthy idea) was preceded by
A(laughter) doesn't mean that whenever there's A(laughter) then B(worthy
idea) ensues

http://xkcd.com/386/

--
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


mva at mva

Nov 19, 2012, 12:20 AM

Post #58 of 68 (368 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
> other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.

So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin -> /bin
(notice the «/»)) ? :D
Attachments: signature.asc (0.88 KB)


rich0 at gentoo

Nov 19, 2012, 4:14 AM

Post #59 of 68 (367 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov <mva [at] mva> wrote:
> 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
>> You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
>> other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
>
> So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin -> /bin
> (notice the «/»)) ? :D

So, given the choices of:
1. Re-establishing FHS standards so that I can boot with / only.
2. Consolidating everything under /usr so that just about all
OS-managed files are in a single place.
3. Stuffing everything in /usr into my root partition.

I'd say that #3 is the worst of all possible worlds. At least there
is some kind of expected benefit from the /usr move. Sure, you COULD
shove everything into root, but I can't think of anybody in this
debate who would consider that a useful solution.

Go read the Fedora reasons-for-the-/usr-move page. Whether you think
it is worth it or not is one thing, but at least there are reasons for
it. I can't think of any benefits from doing the reverse.

Rich


slong at rathaus

Nov 19, 2012, 5:07 AM

Post #60 of 68 (369 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
> simplifying the system.

It's from a lot earlier than the 90s. Perhaps we should get rid of pipes,
too- they're /so/ 1970s.

Torvalds expressed it well[1]:
You made the statement that you want to get away from 30 years of
history, but the fact is, "30 years of history" is a damn good argument
for "that thing worked".

> The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from
> larger partitions, the need has long past.
> Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML
> either.
>
So at the same time as you have never heard a valid reason, the need (which
you have never understood) is long past? Pfft.

To reiterate again: many of us are used to keeping /usr on a separate
partition for security and backup purposes (other use-cases for a separate
partition include mounting /usr over NFS, or a common partition for
virtual machines.) I'm sure other people would have more. Irrespective,
it should be about mechanism, not policy, and certainly not about breaking
existing setups.

Many of the advertised benefits of the "merge /bin and /sbin to /usr"
concept are in fact just benefits of having a separate /usr partition,
though of course they're presented as new and unique to the merge. So, if
you accept those as benefits, you cannot logically deny them as benefits of
a traditional /usr split.

Further, as one user pointed out[2]:
"I'd be more likely to just stick /usr back on / than create an initramfs
- it was only because the LVM guide recommended that /usr go on its own
partition that I now face this situation."

We were given a simple requirement ages ago: udev requires /usr and
/var (and going forward may require /opt for 3rd party drivers) mounted
before it starts, not for udev itself but for helper scripts that it may
call. Why get bogged down in anything else?

The recommended (which became "supported") method to do this was
to use an initramfs, since apparently any chicken-and-egg problems (such
as requiring a udev-initiated device to mount /usr) are easier to handle
there. (Note that no-one has ever provided a description of how they did
that, eg for their bluetooth keyboard, so that the issues, and how they
are addressed, could be made more transparent to everyone.)

A few us are happily running initramfs-less machines by fulfilling the
requirement with a couple of patches to openrc initscripts[2]. (It's
been working fine here since last August.) This works in the case where
you didn't need an initramfs before, ie have modules for local-disks and
filesystems built-in, root not on LVM or encrypted, but other partitions
might be-- which includes LVM users who followed the Gentoo docs.

If that's not enough, there is *already* a forked udev version which quite
a few users have been using[3] and reporting success with. I'd hope the
new fork would just collaborate with them, but it's entirely up to them
what they do.

All of this argues that, irrespective of your views of the layouts admins
prefer to use, they will still use them regardless, and indeed users will
put in the work you yourself told them to.[4] I really don't understand
why people are getting beat up on, just for going ahead and doing what
they've been told to: provide code for an alternative.

If a Gentoo developer doesn't understand what a Gentoo project means,
that's his problem. Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they
are because "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous
basis for any change.

The thing none of the proponents of an initramfs, with no other support
for a separate /usr (apart from busybox sep /usr which does NOT fulfil the
requirements presented by Chainsaw, which Council voted to approve before:
for a start it doesn't handle /usr on LVM), have ever answered is:

How do you deal with the mismatch problem?

That is, when you have programs or libs upgraded, just as part of normal
system upgrades, and they are now different, potentially incompatible, to
the initramfs. (The potential exists, therefore it must be addressed for
a solution even to be considered as robust.)

Do you now need another script to run after every emerge to check that
files in your initramfs are in sync? After all, we've been told the
initramfs is "the new root": iow that we should think of it as our rescue
system, so this matters.

At the same time, we've been told "it's only a few hundred kilobytes at
most." That contradiction has never been answered, either.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/
[2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206.html
[3] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-934678.html
[4] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6987380.html#6987380
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)


grobian at gentoo

Nov 19, 2012, 5:08 AM

Post #61 of 68 (366 views)
Permalink
Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012] [In reply to]

On 19-11-2012 15:20:56 +0700, Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote:
> 18.11.2012 22:51, Fabian Groffen пишет:
> > You end up with a symlink (e.g. bin -> ./usr/bin) from one place to the
> > other regardless, so it doesn't matter much.
>
> So, why not to make /usr/bin -> ../bin (or, maybe even /usr/bin -> /bin
> (notice the «/»)) ? :D

Dunno if Linux has a way to, but if you use an alternative mountpoint,
it's nice when the symlink points in the right direction, and not
accidentially to a life filesystem coming from a rescue device or
whatever.

Fabian

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


antarus at gentoo

Nov 19, 2012, 8:32 AM

Post #62 of 68 (378 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 5:07 AM, Steven J. Long
<slong [at] rathaus> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:16:18PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> I'm still happy enough with building udev out from systemd tree and
>> letting sep. /usr consept from 90s to finally die in favour of
>> simplifying the system.
>
> It's from a lot earlier than the 90s. Perhaps we should get rid of pipes,
> too- they're /so/ 1970s.
>
> Torvalds expressed it well[1]:
> You made the statement that you want to get away from 30 years of
> history, but the fact is, "30 years of history" is a damn good argument
> for "that thing worked".
>
>> The BIOSes have been upgraded last century to support booting from
>> larger partitions, the need has long past.
>> Nobody has ever provided a valid reason for using sep. /usr in the ML
>> either.
>>
> So at the same time as you have never heard a valid reason, the need (which
> you have never understood) is long past? Pfft.
>
> To reiterate again: many of us are used to keeping /usr on a separate
> partition for security and backup purposes (other use-cases for a separate
> partition include mounting /usr over NFS, or a common partition for
> virtual machines.) I'm sure other people would have more. Irrespective,
> it should be about mechanism, not policy, and certainly not about breaking
> existing setups.
>
> Many of the advertised benefits of the "merge /bin and /sbin to /usr"
> concept are in fact just benefits of having a separate /usr partition,
> though of course they're presented as new and unique to the merge. So, if
> you accept those as benefits, you cannot logically deny them as benefits of
> a traditional /usr split.
>
> Further, as one user pointed out[2]:
> "I'd be more likely to just stick /usr back on / than create an initramfs
> - it was only because the LVM guide recommended that /usr go on its own
> partition that I now face this situation."
>
> We were given a simple requirement ages ago: udev requires /usr and
> /var (and going forward may require /opt for 3rd party drivers) mounted
> before it starts, not for udev itself but for helper scripts that it may
> call. Why get bogged down in anything else?
>
> The recommended (which became "supported") method to do this was
> to use an initramfs, since apparently any chicken-and-egg problems (such
> as requiring a udev-initiated device to mount /usr) are easier to handle
> there. (Note that no-one has ever provided a description of how they did
> that, eg for their bluetooth keyboard, so that the issues, and how they
> are addressed, could be made more transparent to everyone.)
>
> A few us are happily running initramfs-less machines by fulfilling the
> requirement with a couple of patches to openrc initscripts[2]. (It's
> been working fine here since last August.) This works in the case where
> you didn't need an initramfs before, ie have modules for local-disks and
> filesystems built-in, root not on LVM or encrypted, but other partitions
> might be-- which includes LVM users who followed the Gentoo docs.
>
> If that's not enough, there is *already* a forked udev version which quite
> a few users have been using[3] and reporting success with. I'd hope the
> new fork would just collaborate with them, but it's entirely up to them
> what they do.
>
> All of this argues that, irrespective of your views of the layouts admins
> prefer to use, they will still use them regardless, and indeed users will
> put in the work you yourself told them to.[4] I really don't understand
> why people are getting beat up on, just for going ahead and doing what
> they've been told to: provide code for an alternative.
>
> If a Gentoo developer doesn't understand what a Gentoo project means,
> that's his problem. Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they
> are because "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous
> basis for any change.
>
> The thing none of the proponents of an initramfs, with no other support
> for a separate /usr (apart from busybox sep /usr which does NOT fulfil the
> requirements presented by Chainsaw, which Council voted to approve before:
> for a start it doesn't handle /usr on LVM), have ever answered is:
>
> How do you deal with the mismatch problem?
>
> That is, when you have programs or libs upgraded, just as part of normal
> system upgrades, and they are now different, potentially incompatible, to
> the initramfs. (The potential exists, therefore it must be addressed for
> a solution even to be considered as robust.)
>
> Do you now need another script to run after every emerge to check that
> files in your initramfs are in sync? After all, we've been told the
> initramfs is "the new root": iow that we should think of it as our rescue
> system, so this matters.

Debian / Ubuntu have a tool that basically does this. Its
update-initramfs. I believe it is called from..the postinst of
packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs? honestly I'd have
to look up how they implemented it.

-A

>
> At the same time, we've been told "it's only a few hundred kilobytes at
> most." That contradiction has never been answered, either.
>
> [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/
> [2] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-901206.html
> [3] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-934678.html
> [4] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6987380.html#6987380
> --
> #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
>


rich0 at gentoo

Nov 19, 2012, 8:52 AM

Post #63 of 68 (364 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alec Warner <antarus [at] gentoo> wrote:
>
> Debian / Ubuntu have a tool that basically does this. Its
> update-initramfs. I believe it is called from..the postinst of
> packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs? honestly I'd have
> to look up how they implemented it.

Not a bad idea, with a corresponding eselect tool to control what kind
of initramfs you have (dracut, genkernel, none,
remind-me-but-I-roll-my-own, etc). The ebuild would just call the
function, and the function would handle it accordingly.

Rich


flameeyes at flameeyes

Nov 19, 2012, 8:54 AM

Post #64 of 68 (366 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

On 19/11/2012 08:52, Rich Freeman wrote:
> Not a bad idea, with a corresponding eselect tool to control what kind
> of initramfs you have (dracut, genkernel, none,
> remind-me-but-I-roll-my-own, etc). The ebuild would just call the
> function, and the function would handle it accordingly.

Glad to hear we're now addressing the problem from the technical
prospective.

Thanks Rich,
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes [at] flameeyes — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/


peter at stuge

Nov 19, 2012, 9:43 AM

Post #65 of 68 (366 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

Steven J. Long wrote:
> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
> for any change.

If a friend whom I care about and respect tells me that they don't
understand something I do then I try to consider if maybe I should
change my ways.

If the internet tells me, then even though I probably don't care
about them I might still consider a change, because of the numbers.

It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always worth
considering. It matters a lot for how one is understood.


//Peter


rich0 at gentoo

Nov 19, 2012, 10:16 AM

Post #66 of 68 (365 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Peter Stuge <peter [at] stuge> wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
>> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
>> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
>> for any change.
>
> It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always worth
> considering. It matters a lot for how one is understood.

Sure, but what's the alternative? GLEP-39 was written precisely
because a more top-down system wasn't really working well.

The new model is much more bazar-like, with the Council as a forum for
appeal if things get out of hand.

If once in a while we have to deal with the fallout of something like
this I'll take that any day if it makes it more likely for the next
X32/Prefix/etc to take off on Gentoo.

Rich


peter at stuge

Nov 19, 2012, 10:33 AM

Post #67 of 68 (365 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> Nor should Gentoo projects suddenly change what they are because
> >> "the internet" doesn't understand them. That's a ridiculous basis
> >> for any change.
> >
> > It doesn't always matter what others think, but it is always worth
> > considering. It matters a lot for how one is understood.
>
> Sure, but what's the alternative? GLEP-39 was written precisely
> because a more top-down system wasn't really working well.

I'm thinking that perhaps sunrise projects could be useful. It would
be up to each developer if they choose to start their project as a
"normal" project, or as a sunrise project. It could just as well be
called bootstrap or experimental or one of many other fine names.

There would not be much difference between the two, other than
perhaps that they are hosted in different places to more clearly
communicate intent of the developers who work on the project.

It would also be up to developers if they want to move their project
between the two "types".


> The new model is much more bazar-like, with the Council as a forum
> for appeal if things get out of hand.

They could make recommendations about where new projects should
probably start, but developers could still be free to choose the
other type.


> If once in a while we have to deal with the fallout of something
> like this I'll take that any day if it makes it more likely for the
> next X32/Prefix/etc to take off on Gentoo.

I don't think it's strictly neccessary to accept fallout from
misunderstandings just to have room for innovation.


//Peter


slong at rathaus

Nov 27, 2012, 12:11 AM

Post #68 of 68 (338 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [In reply to]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:52:46AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Alec Warner <antarus [at] gentoo> wrote:
> >
> > Debian / Ubuntu have a tool that basically does this. Its
> > update-initramfs. I believe it is called from..the postinst of
> > packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs? honestly I'd have
> > to look up how they implemented it.
>
> Not a bad idea, with a corresponding eselect tool to control what kind
> of initramfs you have (dracut, genkernel, none,
> remind-me-but-I-roll-my-own, etc). The ebuild would just call the
> function, and the function would handle it accordingly.
>
The issue there is "packages that are supposed to be in the initramfs," since
we've been told the initramfs is a custom thing for our situation. (Which is
kinda my issue with just dumping the whole problem on end-users and admins
who are not using a prepackaged distro without customisation, instead of
maintaining backward-compatibility.)

Mind, I don't have an issue with developers deciding certain packages are
critical: after all the same knowledge informs what should be on root.

I just don't think that the above answers the problem comprehensively (and
thus it isn't worth the maintenance headache, if it can be avoided.)

All the tutorials, and packages, I've seen on the forums take you through
deciding exactly what you need in the initramfs. So given that each user
has a potentially different set of stuff on there, the robust method would
appear to require the mangler to know which packages had files on there, and
to update them accordingly (or run the generation tool, or warn, as you said)
when one of that set were updated.

Simply triggering a warning when one of a named set is built, sounds like a
start. (The initramfs generation script could run qfile to build/check the
set.) Thereafter it's "just" a matter of hooking into that, if the functionality
is not already present.

(I don't run unstable portage any more, as I need to be close to what end-users
of our emerge wrapper are using, so I'm not up on the current state of 2.2. I'd
prefer not to have to script round this issue, since it doesn't affect me at all.)

Regards,
SteveL.
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Gentoo dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.