Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new nameShuttleworth: Quality has a new namePosted Apr 24, 2012 14:27 UTC (Tue) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870)Parent article: Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name
I do not want to comment on the decision to adopt or not adopt any init system. But Lennart's response is flawed. I recall:
1 devfs was deprecated, with udev being the hailed successor 2 Ubuntu develops upstart 3 Lennart develops systemd 4 udev gets merged into upstart 5 Lennart criticizes Ubuntu for sticking to an inferior init system which requires Upstart to rely on orphaned infrastructure such as *independent udev*. WHAT? This might well be an issue of control, but if it is, I can see where it comes from. 6 On an unrelated side note systemd now also contains a reimplementation of readahead.
It might well be that systemd is superior infrastructure, I cannot judge this. But the way to go about and call out others as control freaks, when what I see is unilateral decisions being made in systemd-land. If it is not possible to use udev anymore without systemd without being critized, something is very wrong.
(Log in to post comments)
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 14:33 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
udev got merged into systemd, not into upstart.
https://lwn.net/Articles/490413/ I *think* that's what you meant, but it's not entirely clear.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 14:36 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
Which bit is flawed? Does it really matter who did something first? You say something about control, but Lennart + udev people merged it. He cannot do that on his own.
I do see advocacy in his blogpost, but that's pretty much to be expected (he develops systemd, of course he'll think it is great).
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 15:14 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
when udev was merged with systemd, everyone was assured that this would not force them to use systemd, that udev would continue to be available stand-along.
now he is saying that it's orphaned??? that didn't take long.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 16:54 UTC (Tue) by cmorgan (guest, #71980) [Link]
It sounded like he meant that because Ubuntu was sticking with some older version of udev that they were missing out on improvements brought by being able to build systemd and udev together. Would be useful to ask Lennart to clarify though.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 17:08 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Ubuntu should not have to stick to an older version of udev unless the new versions are so tied in to systemd that they can't be used independently.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 18:28 UTC (Tue) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
no, it did not sound like he meant it this way. he said "
Because they have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development."
how does this leave room for interpretation? independent udev is "orphaned by its developers"
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 18:50 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
I read independent as in different tarball. The original announcement made it really clear that it was just about sharing some code and the build system.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 20:40 UTC (Tue) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
did udev once have links to consolekit in some form or fashion that Canonical needs? (barring their adoption of systemd-logind)
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 21:13 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]
No clue. Hope Lennart or someone else will read LWN and clarify.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 22:43 UTC (Tue) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link]
We don't support udev in an separate tarball anymore. We do support udev built from the systemd tree used independently of systemd. We need that for our own initrds, so we will support that for a long time.
Lennart
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 23:49 UTC (Tue) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] Is there a big problem to write a couple of lines that generate a separate udev tarball for those who don't need the systemd part?
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 25, 2012 5:09 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
I don't think Ubuntu is using a tarball, I think they are using git.
(I was going to write a mocking post initially)
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 25, 2012 9:31 UTC (Wed) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]
There isn't a big problem having the systemd code in the source tarballs for udev packages.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 25, 2012 8:54 UTC (Wed) by chrisV (subscriber, #43417) [Link]
"We don't support udev in an separate tarball anymore. We do support udev built from the systemd tree used independently of systemd. We need that for our own initrds, so we will support that for a long time."
Then why did you say in your Google+ posting:
"Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development"
Both your statements cannot be true, except perhaps in relation to ConsoleKit (if independent development of that is ceasing), but that is a relatively trivial piece of code.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 20:34 UTC (Tue) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
> 6 On an unrelated side note systemd now also contains a reimplementation of read-ahead.
IIRC, upstarts readahead requires a patch to the kernel, systemd's does not.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 27, 2012 2:38 UTC (Fri) by geissert (subscriber, #61258) [Link]
there's no such thing such as "upstarts readahead" (sic). It's yet another readahead implementation, with its own merits, and happens to be started by an upstart job. That's it.
Last I checked, systemd's used the audit subsystem, which is what the previous "readahead" from Fedora used. Using the audit subsystem has its own issues.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 27, 2012 3:52 UTC (Fri) by spaetz (subscriber, #32870) [Link]
> Last I checked, systemd's used the audit subsystem, which is what the previous "readahead" from Fedora used. Using the audit subsystem has its own issues.
But it has a built-in reimplementation which is pretty new
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 27, 2012 9:01 UTC (Fri) by michich (subscriber, #17902) [Link]
systemd's readahead uses fanotify, not audit.
|
|||||||||||||