Hi Jude,

One thing that matters most (for me), is that you're here, working on this,
with Devuan team. This is very important!

Also, when talking about eudev, we have this:


q: plans when udev becomes systemd-only ? (after kdbus merge):

https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/95


I can see why ("the reasons / motivation") the distros all over the globe,
are being forced to use systemd / dbus (on servers!!), and udev is one of
those (biggest) reasons... Otherwise, if we have a high quality udev
replacement, then, who cares about systemd? With a drop-in replacement for
udev, we can easily kick systemd! I know that there are that logind thing,
the gnome drama and etc but, first things first. :-P

>From what I'm seeing, eudev might hit a dead-end, sooner or later, making
it harder and harder to build a systemd-free Linux distro. I mean, when
system-udev enforces systemd=PID1, then, sysvinit-core|upstart will be
dead. Right?!

Unless, eudev start walking on its own path (Feasible? Viable?)...

So, vdev (and the proposed alternatives, including plain static /dev),
seems the way to go in the long run, for a systemd-free Linux distribution.


The question that remains: which path is a "way to go"?!

1- build a new "udev", lets say, vdev? or;

2- stick with eudev and, "after kdbus got merged" (when systemd-udev
becomes useless without systemd = PID1), eudev will follow its own path,
forever...


If we stick with "2", then, I think that it worth putting huge efforts into
eudev, to make it a high quality piece of software. Including a big
crowdfunding campaign everywhere! Of course, if desirable.

Nevertheless, I'm must confess, I'm still divided... All of this work,
isn't a waste of time and effort? I mean, systemd seems to be making the
life easier for a lot of projects! Even Enlightenment devs (I'm there on
e-devel list) are talking about the huge benefits of systemd, that it will
make E-Development easier, for example, when using it with Wayland/DRM,
also, `enlightenment_start` binary will not be required anymore (when with
systemd), less code for E team to maintain, and etc...     :-)        :-/
    :-)       +_+

So, are we going to succeed (yes, we can do this)? Or this is a waste? Lets
not lie to ourselves... I know we can build a systemd-free distro, I know
that... But, honestly, I like the ideas behind systemd (new VT code
(consoled), native multiseat support, CGroup Process that can not "scape"
systemd) but, its implementation / architecture creeps the heel outta me!
Also, the attitudes of systemd developers makes me sick. They have no
"social skills" and a terrible bug handling. And I don't like to be forced
to use this, or that. Choice is always important, but too many choices are
also a bad thing.

Cheers!
Thiago

On 30 December 2014 at 01:45, Jude Nelson <judecn@???> wrote:

> Hi TJ,
>
> I totally agree. I'm creating vdev to be a replacement for udev in the
> long term, but it will need a *lot* of testing before I'm comfortable
> recommending it as the default device manager in *any* distribution.
>
> That said, I hope to have an alpha package in a few days. It will be able
> to run side-by-side with udev/eudev/mdev/static dev.
>
> Jude
> On Dec 29, 2014 3:10 PM, "T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:
>
>> If I might offer my two cents, I'm afraid that I must agree. Don't get
>> me wrong, the vdev proposal is quite interesting, but for the first
>> release, I believe the best route is to stick with building udev apart from
>> the systemd source tree. To do it any other way will probably cause
>> software issues that we do not presently have the developer resources to
>> solve - especially if we are already going to be busy trying to compile or
>> provide metadata for all the packages in Debian Jesse.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:05 AM, dima <dima@???> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You can't just switch to vdev, because many packages depend on libudev.
>>> Only udev and eudev provide it.
>>>
>>> eudev is the only realistic option right now, because it's a drop-in
>>> replacement. Moreover, it's the only udev alternative with feature-parity.
>>>
>>> By the way, I'm not sure whether vdev is ready for the prime time.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2014 22:26:49 -0500
>>> "Martinx - ジェームズ" <thiagocmartinsc@???> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Guys,
>>> >
>>> > I'm wondering here about what to do with `udev`, which is `systemd` in
>>> > fact...
>>> >
>>> > What about this:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 1- Rename current `udev` package to `systemd-udev`;
>>> >
>>> > 2- Add `vdev`;
>>> >
>>> > 3- Add `eudev`;
>>> >
>>> > 4- Add `mdev`;
>>> >
>>> > 4- Create a new Metapackage called `udev`, that will Depends on `eudev
>>> |
>>> > vdev | mdev | systemd-udev`.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > This will be very similar to the new `init` Metapackage on Jessie, that
>>> > Depends on `systemd-sysv | sysvinit-core | upstart`.
>>> >
>>> > What do you guys think?
>>> >
>>> > 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. Source:
>>> >
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html
>>> >
>>> > I would like to evaluate `vdev` soon as possible.
>>> >
>>> > Best!
>>> > Thiago
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dima Krasner <dima@???>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dng mailing list
>>> Dng@???
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
>