On 26/12/2014 04:26, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
> 3- Add `eudev`;

Already in the pipeline, the current package builds in a clean
jessie-based sbuild environment (that is, if you know what you're
doing), but the maintainer hasn't yet given the go ahead for testing.

Meanwhile I'm ironing out a few wrinkles in the abi-compliance-checker
pipeline, but I'll get a report on ABI compatibility between libudev1
from upstream and libudev1 from eudev in the next days (a week at
worst). libgudev comes next (it's a bit harder to check due to its
bigger dep chain).

Making the compliance check automated and pluggable into Jenkins will
require some coordination with our infra guys, but it's a bit early for
that :-)

> 4- Create a new Metapackage called `udev`, that will Depends on `eudev |
> vdev | mdev | systemd-udev`.

Currently, source:eudev builds metapackages. A lot of them. Too many of
them.

There could (emphasis on "could") be a better solution: dpkg finally
supports versioned virtual packages, so real packages like udev et al.
can be shadowed with a versioned Provides stanza in the binary eudev
packages (hopefully, but that would cause some issues with vdev and mdev
- if anyone chooses to contribute them). Testing has been positive but
very limited, the missing bit is what the hell apt is going to choose
when presented with a real package and a virtual package with the same
version but higher priority.

I'll make some tests soonish, they're definitely easier than the
abi-compliance-checker stuff (even though I won't be able to cover all
bases yet - especially the d-i stuff).

> Also, I would like to know more about the quality of `eudev` and if it
> worth keeping it, since `systemd` developers will remove its "netlink"
> support (am I right)? Then, `systemd-udev` will depends on `systemd` as
> PID1 in the future (through KDBUS, if I'm not wrong), making it very
> hard to keep `eudev` up to date.

That will be fodder for jessie+1, right now kdbus hasn't been merged
(yet) and eudev will be maintained for the foreseeable future by its
upstream.

Also, I'd venture to say that eudev was forked exactly due to the
upcoming "One Ring" scenario (the infamous "Gentoo people, this is your
wakeup call" line from Lennart), so I don't see how this is going to be
a problem unless systemd-udev starts leaking to consumers internal
details about its transport.

Regards,
--
Matteo Panella