From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Allin Cottrell Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:38:45 +0000 Subject: Re: udev fork Message-Id: List-Id: References: <20120912174951.GA32608@glow> In-Reply-To: <20120912174951.GA32608@glow> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Allin Cottrell wrote: >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> >>> 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). >> >> Pkg X "can use" pkg Y (where Y is something that one might or might not >> want to install) is not an argument against requiring pkg X. > > It is for LFS. Every user builds every package from source. That's the > purpose of LFS. I don't see it. "Can use" Y means it doesn't have to use Y: if you're building X from scratch and don't have a (pressing) use for whatever pkg Y provides, then say --disable-Y when configuring X (or maybe that's not even needed, if Y is auto-detected). Not a problem. >> I'm one who thinks (on the basis of experience with home-rolled >> systems), that systemd really is a smarter, faster, more comprehensible, >> and more user-manageable way to get a Linux system up and running than >> sysvinit plus a big mess of shell scripts. > > After dealing with LFS users for 10 years, my experience is different. If we > were building a binary distro to distribute to users, I might agree with you, > but we try to make things easy to understand. The base LFS system has about > 2000 lines of shell scripts. Compare to about 150K of C code in systemd. If > a script has a problem, there are typically about 5 lines in a start or stop. > Plowing through all the C code is a lot more difficult. OK, opinions may differ on this. But I'm not talking about making a distro either, just running a DIY Linux system (not strictly LFS, but making grateful use of LFS from time to time). I've found that the C code of systemd "just works"; the only thing I have to worry about is the *.service files, which are easier to manage than shell scripts plus the menagerie of shell functions they call. I'm no more required to concern myself with systemd's C code that I was with sysvinit's C code. >> However, I take your point about some of the systemd dependencies, >> direct and indirect (even though systemd's configure script has a fair >> number of useful --disable-whatever options). > > They have rejected patches that fix the problem. That's relevant. Any specifics? Did you have a patch to really disable nls? >> Why intltool, for instance? Systemd has a --disable-nls option in its >> configure script. But this is in fact just automake fraud; there's >> really no way to disable nls (and everything it brings in, including >> intltool), so far as I can tell. > > That's why we have a hand crafted Makefile. I don't understand > why autotools are needed for a package that only has one target > architecture. For my part I like autoconf but consider automake the spawn of Satan, so I'm part-way with you on that. Makefiles that can be read by human beings -- and don't contain 95% irrelevant repetitive numbskull boilerplate -- are certainly my preference. -- Allin Cottrell Department of Economics Wake Forest University