Re: udev fork

[Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@gmail.com>]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:56:33PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>> What dependencies?  Run time?  Build time?  And why are dependencies
>>> bad?  Do you have no ram in your system for them?
>>
>> The configure scripts require packages that are not in LFS.
>
> Like what?  Can't you add them?

intltool, glib, gperf, gobject-introspection.

intl needs XML::Parser.  glib needs libffi and python and can use pcre, 
attr, d-bus, gamin, and gtk-doc.  gobject-introspection also needs glib 
and can use cairo and gtk-doc.  cairo needs libpng, glib, and pixman and 
can use fontconfig, gtk+, xorg libraries (and on and on).

They are all in BLFS but they are not needed for all users.  For 
instance, if you want to build a system and only want to add a web 
server, they are not needed.

>> We do not want to add them just to satisfy a systemd build that we
>> don't want. However creating a custom Makefile to build udev from the
>> current systemd sources was not particularly hard.
>
> So you don't offer systemd to any LFS user either?

We could add it to BLFS, but I think it would require us to redo all our 
boot scripts.  Users do have the systemd sources and are free to use it 
if they desire.

>>> Personally, I think running a Linux system without systemd is a deadend,
>>> but hey, what do I know about these things?  :)
>>
>> I understand that big distros only want to support one methodology,
>
> No, that's not why they are switching to systemd.
>
>> but in my opinion systemd is a solution only needed by a very small
>> percentage of users.
>
> I don't think you really understand what systemd offers.

Perhaps not, but we also have not had any requests for systemd.  I've 
been programming since 1965 and using Unix like systems since about 1988 
and have not run into the problems that systemd solves.  We all have 
different perspectives and I'm sure you have many instances where it is 
a good solution.

> I don't know
> anyone who has used it that has wanted to switch back.  Also, it solves
> numerous problems that people have been having for years.  And further,
> it's becoming a requirement for large industry groups that use Linux,
> because they too want what it offers.
>
> That's not to say you don't want it, that's fine, I understand, but to
> deride it by saying only a small number of users want it is
> disingenuous.

I didn't say that only a small number of users want it.  The vast 
majority of users don't know or care.  One major reason users want to 
build from source is because they think the major distros are bloated.

The major reason for us to even publish LFS/BLFS is to help users 
understand how things fit together.

>> It is quite opaque for new users trying to understand the boot
>> process.
>
> The 100+ man pages are not descriptive enough? :)

The fact that there are 100+ pages needed is the point.

>> We don't use an initrd for the same reason.
>
> That's fine, but then how do you support a separate /usr partition?  And
> handle kernels built for a wide range of systems?

We don't support every combination directly.  If /usr is on /dev/sda7, 
there is no problem.  Just put it in fstab.  We don't support encrypted 
partitions or other less common setups.  In our next version, we may 
merge /bin, /lib, and /sbin into /usr though.

>> The nice thing about Linux is that one size does not have to fit all.
>
> Sure, and that's fine.  But I think you are shortchanging your users
> here.  Again, just my opinion.

Our users are free to do what they think is right.  We even try to help 
when users do things outside of LFS/BLFS.  There is no shortchanging.

   -- Bruce