View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
grey_dot Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have talked to Mister Kroah-Hartman before. He is extremely unhelpful. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
infirit l33t
Joined: 11 Jan 2003 Posts: 778 Location: Hoofddorp / The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The usual shit storm about misunderstandings and presumptions _________________ EASY TO INSTALL = Difficult to install, but instruction manual has pictures.
Join the adopt an unanswered post initiative today |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hcaulfield57 Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Mar 2012 Posts: 148
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I completely fail to see where all this antagonism comes from against the various udev forks and even mdev earlier. Who cares what projects people spend their time on, they are trying to code and implement solutions to problems that other people created for them, and then get derided for fixing the problems. The fact of the matter is that many people don't want to use systemd and want to keep separate /usr, this is a solution to solve this problem.
And where is all this stuff about separate /usr being broken? The whole point of /usr in the first place was for it to be separate. I've never had a problem with separate /usr, things have always worked properly as they should. And yea I know, my system is just so broken that I don't even know it. Well I'd just prefer to stay ignorant about my broken system |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002 Posts: 2889 Location: Omnipresent
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of old hands in the OSS world are unhappy with what's happen to the culture. It used to be about duct tape and hacker culture, working around the flaws of corporates OSes and cobbling together desktop software for the fun of it. If you didn't like something, send in a patch or make a friendly fork.
At around the time OSS became a profit center, this started to change. A lot of non-developer users were drawn in, and the emphasis shifted from hackability to "usability." Now there are many people like gregkh asking "why" instead of "why not" whenever you try to do something different, ostensibly because it creates fragmentation.
In the old days, fragmentation was *good* -- it means you had multiple solutions to problems, to suit different tastes. As long as you followed Unix principles there was no problem with interoperability. _________________ Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hcaulfield57 Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Mar 2012 Posts: 148
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hypnos wrote: | A lot of old hands in the OSS world are unhappy with what's happen to the culture. It used to be about duct tape and hacker culture, working around the flaws of corporates OSes and cobbling together desktop software for the fun of it. If you didn't like something, send in a patch or make a friendly fork.
|
Wish it would go back to that, I hate all the corporate/political manipulation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002 Posts: 2889 Location: Omnipresent
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
hcaulfield57 wrote: | Wish it would go back to that, I hate all the corporate/political manipulation.
|
Then suckless and glendix may be for you.
I personally am keen on Glendix, have mixed feelings on Suckless.
EDIT: I'm definitely on the cat-v bandwagon. _________________ Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaggyStyle Watchman
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5941
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
C++ is bad but google's GO is good? _________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002 Posts: 2889 Location: Omnipresent
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
DaggyStyle wrote: | C++ is bad but google's GO is good? |
C++ is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better. If you want to discuss the horror of C++ or how it compares to Go in greater depth, PM me.
I'll add that if you are using C and garbage collection anyway, there's not much wrong with Objective-C. _________________ Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DaggyStyle Watchman
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 Posts: 5941
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hypnos wrote: | DaggyStyle wrote: | C++ is bad but google's GO is good? |
C++ is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better. If you want to discuss the horror of C++ or how it compares to Go in greater depth, PM me.
I'll add that if you are using C and garbage collection anyway, there's not much wrong with Objective-C. |
I like C++, I don't trust any of google's initiatives, so for me it is the other way around. _________________ Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fourchannel n00b
Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Posts: 17
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hypnos wrote: | DaggyStyle wrote: | C++ is bad but google's GO is good? |
C++ is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better. If you want to discuss the horror of C++ or how it compares to Go in greater depth, PM me.
I'll add that if you are using C and garbage collection anyway, there's not much wrong with Objective-C. |
You know, you could say that english is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better.
And you could reason that it's so horribly misused it's a disaster.
And you could reason that another language does have a totally better foundation and you should just move to that.
And you might find yourself being blindsided when this sounds an aweful lot like the introduction of C++ over C.
English does have ways of being used rather effectively, and it's more so that it's being used in the wrong way than it's mathematically impossible for any idea to be constructed with english -> eh... it's not perfect, but it's not quite that broken.
C++ is not perfect, but it does have a lot of ways to use it effectively for the task at hand.
Don't need runtime exception handling for hello world -> Code: | gcc --fno-exceptions | -> boom your program went on an epic diet.
Need even smaller? -> Code: | gcc --fno-exceptions -Os |
Don't know what those do? -> realize that is a sign that points to misunderstanding, and frustration from others not understanding yet still using.
I suspect that if you promote simply switching to yet another language, as opposed to concentrating on why it's so misused to begin with, you are going to simply repeat history and after a while people will be complaining about how Go is a crime against humanity -> namely for all the wrong ways it is being used which makes people super pissed that it's even around.
I will agree with you C++ has some technical flaws, yes.
Can they be avoided by changing to another language? Probably.
Can they be corrected by first understanding what mechanism(s) are causing the problem, what controls them in what way, and what configuration/compile options/program design changes can be made to resolve problem? Probably.
Sometimes people forget that C++ is intentially not a purebred language. It's like a multitool. Yeah, you can tighten a screw with the knife blade or you can also use the screwdriver, or you can even attempt a blade-screwdriver hybrid solution but that might take some fingers with it.
Holy crap that was ramble factorial. _________________ ---FourChannel---
Put your spare cpu cycles to good use
Last edited by fourchannel on Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:01 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hypnos Advocate
Joined: 18 Jul 2002 Posts: 2889 Location: Omnipresent
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the quality of your prose, I can see why you like C++.
But please, let's not pollute a udev thread with this discussion. Start another thread. _________________ Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fourchannel n00b
Joined: 21 Jul 2006 Posts: 17
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hypnos wrote: | From the quality of your prose, I can see why you like C++.
But please, let's not pollute a udev thread with this discussion. Start another thread. |
Yeah, sorry about that. Pretty sure ADD meds didn't help with the brevity. _________________ ---FourChannel---
Put your spare cpu cycles to good use |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008 Posts: 6214 Location: Dallas area
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I scrolled down through the link.
I fail to understand how discussing the problem nicely,
as it seemed to be being done, is "making the gentoo devs look foolish" or "wannabe's".
One should think given the history of open software that looking foolish
for doing something, that needs doing, is the last thing one should feel.
Who cares what another thinks, they are entitled to their opinion.
I remember when linux first came out, on the minix discussion area,
and I'm sure that some thought that Linus was foolish, but look where it is now.
Just some thoughts, now back to the technical discussion. :^) _________________ UM780, 6.12 zen kernel, gcc 13, openrc, wayland |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulBredbury Watchman
Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7310
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anon-E-moose wrote: | Just some thoughts, now back to the technical discussion. :^) |
Take those thoughts where they belong - in off-the-wall threads: Udev ...... off Linus and udev was forked |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008 Posts: 6214 Location: Dallas area
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________ UM780, 6.12 zen kernel, gcc 13, openrc, wayland |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dwbowyer Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 155
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:33 pm Post subject: virtual/udev[acl] now required |
|
|
We need a new USE flag on the ebuild, acl
After Code: | amd64 dev # emerge --sync && layman -S
amd64 dev # emerge -puvDN system
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] sys-apps/makedev-3.23.1 USE="-build (-selinux)" 120 kB
[ebuild N ] sys-fs/static-dev-0.1 0 kB
|
Which occurs if sys-fs/udev::gentoo is package.masked
This is due to new requirement of
This is what default udev users get.
Code: |
[ebuild R ] sys-fs/udev-195::gentoo [195::udev] USE="acl%* gudev hwdb keymap openrc -doc -introspection (-selinux) -static-libs (-debug%) (-floppy%)" 1,409 kB
[ebuild N ] virtual/udev-0 USE="acl -gudev -hwdb -introspection -keymap (-selinux) -static-libs" 0 kB
|
EDIT: Or I could just Code: | echo "virtual/udev -acl" >> /etc/portage/package.use |
Since I don't actually use ACL. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grey_dot Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: virtual/udev[acl] now required |
|
|
dwbowyer wrote: | We need a new USE flag on the ebuild, acl
|
Actually, acl was dropped around udev-180 and latest versions don't have that function. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grey_dot Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because of new virtual/udev in the portage tree blocks this fork installation from the overlay, and gentoo devs unwilling to include this fork into the tree, I had to include virtual/udev into the udev overlay. So, now in order to have everything working you have to mask virtual/udev::gentoo and install virtual/udev::udev.
My /etc/portage/package.mask as an example:
Code: |
app-arch/xz-utils::gentoo
sys-apps/kmod::gentoo
sys-fs/udev::gentoo
sys-fs/udev-init-scripts::gentoo
virtual/udev::gentoo
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dwbowyer Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 155
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
There are 3 virtual/udev packages (and counting), which I guess the overlay will need to shadow. For something that is supposed to make drop in replacements easy, these virtuals sure do seem to be doing the opposite.
Code: |
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=virtual/udev-180[gudev,hwdb]" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- virtual/udev-180::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
(dependency required by "sys-fs/udisks-2.0.0" [installed])
(dependency required by "app-emulation/wine-1.5.18[udisks]" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "app-emulation/winetricks-922" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dwbowyer Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 155
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
*Someone* needs to learn that virtual packages should NOT have versions -- that logic should be in one ebuild. But I'm not naming names.
Code: |
amd64 udev # cp udev-0.ebuild udev-180.ebuild
amd64 udev # ebuild udev-180.ebuild manifest
>>> Creating Manifest for /var/lib/layman/udev/virtual/udev
amd64 udev # emerge virtual/udev
|
works, but
Code: |
amd64 udev # emerge -puvDN world
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=virtual/udev-180[gudev,hwdb]" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- virtual/udev-180::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
/etc/portage/package.mask:
# udev overlay
(dependency required by "sys-fs/udisks-2.0.0" [installed])
(dependency required by "app-emulation/wine-1.5.18[udisks]" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "app-emulation/winetricks-922" [ebuild])
(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])
|
EDIT: And yes, I copy/pasted grey_dots /etc/portage/package.mask entries. I use other */*::gentoo masks, and no problems, so I am think this is maybe something to do with portage logic regarding virtuals + version numbers + overlay.
EDIT2: Either that or the virtual also needs to support the USE flags too. Ideas? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dwbowyer Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2008 Posts: 155
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes just verified that the virtual HAS to support the use flags that other ebuilds unconditionally depend on.
udev-180.ebuild: |
# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
EAPI=2
DESCRIPTION="Virtual for udev implementation"
HOMEPAGE=""
SRC_URI=""
LICENSE=""
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="~alpha ~amd64 ~arm ~hppa ~ia64 ~m68k ~mips ~ppc ~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~x86"
IUSE="acl gudev hwdb introspection keymap selinux static-libs"
DEPEND=""
RDEPEND="|| (
sys-fs/udev
)"
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
grey_dot Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
dwbowyer wrote: | Yes just verified that the virtual HAS to support the use flags that other ebuilds unconditionally depend on.
|
Fixed, Thanks for that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grey_dot Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 15 Jul 2012 Posts: 142
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry to announce this, but both me and consus decided to abandon the development of this fork. Too much of bad [Mod edit for language. — JRG] code and not enough free time. Repo and overlay will still be accessible.
You can either try to use gentoo devs' fork, stick to an older version, or remove udev completely since most of it's functions are moved to the kernel (I chose the later option).
Thanks to everyone who took part in the development. It was cool :) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
olek Apprentice
Joined: 22 Oct 2011 Posts: 173
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sad, I liked that project. Many thanks for your efforts! _________________ https://plaintext.blog |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GFCCAE6xF Apprentice
Joined: 06 Aug 2012 Posts: 295
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
olek wrote: | Sad, I liked that project. Many thanks for your efforts! |
I agree, many thanks grey_dot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|