FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-29-2011, 09:54 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

Hi guys,

The next udev release will change its kernel requirements. This will
not affect people running our standard kernel, but self-compiled
kernels might be, and the -lts kernel is affected.

The major changes are:

* 2.6.34 is the minimum kernel requirement (our current -lts is .32).

* devtmpfs support must be switched on; /dev can no longer be on a
tmpfs (this should only affect self-compiled kernels).

For more details see
<http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=blob_plain;f=README>.

I think it does not make any sense for people to hold back udev and
upgrade other packages, so once this is out I'll remove support for
non-devtmpfs kernels in initscripts too. It might possibly make sense
to re-evaluate our minimum kernel version supported in glibc, but I'll
leave that to more knowledgeable people.

Closer to the release I'll make a news item about this so everyone is aware.

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 12-29-2011, 04:09 PM
Andreas Radke
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

Am Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:54:52 +0100
schrieb Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no>:

> Hi guys,
>
> The next udev release will change its kernel requirements. This will
> not affect people running our standard kernel, but self-compiled
> kernels might be, and the -lts kernel is affected.
>
> The major changes are:
>
> * 2.6.34 is the minimum kernel requirement (our current -lts is .32).
>

Will there be a udev-compat pkg allowing to keep .32 lts?

I'd like to update our LTS kernel to a more recent version but so far
Grek hasn't announced any late kernel release to become long term
supported. So there's no real option to update it for now. LTS-2.6.32
is still the best supported long term kernel upstream.

-Andy
 
Old 12-29-2011, 05:42 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Will there be a udev-compat pkg allowing to keep .32 lts?

The udev-compat package has contained a few extra rules files that
allowed old kernels to keep working. It looks like this will no longer
be enough as of the next release (there has been no update to the
compat rules), though I don't know exactly what caused the required
version bump.

In other words, things might continue to work, but we'll be on our own.

It might be worth noting that what we are doing (old kernels on new
user-space) is not really supported/tested upstream and the README
says "The upstream udev project's set of default rules may require a
most recent kernel release to work properly.".

> I'd like to update our LTS kernel to a more recent version but so far
> Grek hasn't announced any late kernel release to become long term
> supported. So there's no real option to update it for now. LTS-2.6.32
> is still the best supported long term kernel upstream.

That's a bit annoying. Any idea when a new LTS kernel would be out? I
don't really know what to suggest. What exactly is the use-case for
our LTS kernel?

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 12-29-2011, 05:48 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Will there be a udev-compat pkg allowing to keep .32 lts?
>
> The udev-compat package has contained a few extra rules files that
> allowed old kernels to keep working. It looks like this will no longer
> be enough as of the next release (there has been no update to the
> compat rules), though I don't know exactly what caused the required
> version bump.
>
> In other words, things might continue to work, but we'll be on our own.
Along with every other distro trying to package an advertised-as-stable kernel.

> It might be worth noting that what we are doing (old kernels on new
> user-space) is not really supported/tested upstream and the README
> says "The upstream udev project's set of default rules may require a
> most recent kernel release to work properly.".
"Upstream" seems to be more and more the whims of two developers that
think they've come up with the best thing since sliced bread, no?

>> I'd like to update our LTS kernel to a more recent version but so far
>> Grek hasn't announced any late kernel release to become long term
>> supported. So there's no real option to update it for now. LTS-2.6.32
>> is still the best supported long term kernel upstream.
>
> That's a bit annoying. Any idea when a new LTS kernel would be out? I
> don't really know what to suggest. What exactly is the use-case for
> our LTS kernel?
Why the hell are we even having to worry about this stuff downstream?
This is super frustrating that upstream kernel developers can't even
push back on the udev and systemd folk for this crap.

The whole idea of an LTS kernel is fairly clear from the name- "long
term support". If these projects are getting so damn lazy they can't
even support an upstream kernel, it is pretty absurd in my opinion.

</rant>

I've realized I didn't say much productive, but I don't have time to
fight this battle, nor do I even really use the LTS kernel. However,
this whole darn thing just seems troublesome, and I'm a tad surprised
we are the only ones unhappy about this, if that is even the case. Is
there no push back occurring on these mailing lists?

-Dan
 
Old 12-29-2011, 06:16 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've realized I didn't say much productive, but I don't have time to
> fight this battle, nor do I even really use the LTS kernel. However,
> this whole darn thing just seems troublesome, and I'm a tad surprised
> we are the only ones unhappy about this, if that is even the case. Is
> there no push back occurring on these mailing lists?

There seem to be no interest in making udev work with old kernels, as
far as I can tell from the ML.

-t
 
Old 12-30-2011, 09:19 AM
Jan de Groot
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

On do, 2011-12-29 at 20:16 +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've realized I didn't say much productive, but I don't have time to
> > fight this battle, nor do I even really use the LTS kernel. However,
> > this whole darn thing just seems troublesome, and I'm a tad surprised
> > we are the only ones unhappy about this, if that is even the case. Is
> > there no push back occurring on these mailing lists?
>
> There seem to be no interest in making udev work with old kernels, as
> far as I can tell from the ML.

Which is quite logical. We're the only distribution that maintains the
latest userspace with an LTS kernel. Your statement is: "We upgrade
udev, we have to drop old kernels now". All the other distributions:
"Hmm, this udev sucks, we can't use this with our kernel, let's keep it
on hold, just like we do with pkg X".
This is quite logical: why depend on a several years old kernel, but use
the latest and greatest udev? Those things are tied together quite
closely.

As for the minimum version:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commitdiff;h=e3c14a7ff3931e4c09711966e3 a82fd8f98e568a

That commit was done 5 months ago and is in udev since release 173. Did
we ever receive any bugreport about 2.6.32 not working? The readme file
has stated 2.6.34 requirement for a long time now, and still does that.
So maybe there's no problem at all and things still work fine with
2.6.32. As long as our LTS kernel has the options compiled in as
required by udev, I don't think it will become a huge problem.
 
Old 12-30-2011, 10:50 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> This is quite logical: why depend on a several years old kernel, but use
> the latest and greatest udev? Those things are tied together quite
> closely.

You are right. We should expect this to cause us problems sooner or later.

> That commit was done 5 months ago and is in udev since release 173. Did
> we ever receive any bugreport about 2.6.32 not working? The readme file
> has stated 2.6.34 requirement for a long time now, and still does that.
> So maybe there's no problem at all and things still work fine with
> 2.6.32. As long as our LTS kernel has the options compiled in as
> required by udev, I don't think it will become a huge problem.

Since then, several "legacy" things have been dropped from udev
(support for the ide subsystem comes to mind), and until recently
there was some ambiguity in the README stating that .32 was also
supported. This has now been removed.

I have not received any bug reports regarding our -lts. This sort of
makes sense as what is likely to break is support for peripherals or
udisks and friends. If -lts is used on a server without using any
fancy udev features (such as /dev/disk-by-*, cdroms, printers, ...),
there is no reason anyone should notice.

So things are likely to limp along just fine. However, I thought it
would make sense to point out that something is not quite right.
Especially as the people who use -lts are likely doing that because
they want something well tested, but they are getting the opposite.

On a more productive note: I'll be looking into exactly what is
missing in .32, and how big problems we should expect. If people want
to improve the udev-compat rule files, get in touch with me and I can
point you in the right direction as I have some ideas.

-t
 
Old 01-02-2012, 01:28 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

Hi guys,

A quick update:

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> The next udev release will change its kernel requirements.

[...]

> ** 2.6.34 is the minimum kernel requirement (our current -lts is .32).

As far as I can tell this is not really relevant to us, and we should
not expect any great problems from sticking with .32.

I'll fix some minor issues I found (lacking static device nodes) when
I push the next udev-compat release. When that is done, the only
outstanding issue is the udev rules. The upstream rules are kept
up-to-date with the latest kernel release and rules are removed when
they are no longer needed. We might want to review the changes to the
rules since udev-149, to check if there are any rules that have been
changed/removed that we want to add back in. Preferably any additions
we make should go upstream in "rules/misc/30-kernel-compat.rules".

I'll still write a news item regarding the removal of devtmpfs
support, but it seems that there is no reason to worry about .32
kernels.

Cheers,

Tom
 
Old 01-02-2012, 02:07 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

I suggest the following news item:

*****

Users of unofficial kernels must enable devtmpfs support
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As of udev-176, we will no longer be able to boot kernels without
devtmpfs support.

The official Arch kernels (`kernel26-lts` and `linux`) have both had
devtmpfs support for a long time, so only people who compile their own
kernels are potentially affected by this change.

More information about the kernel options required by udev is
available in the udev [README](here:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=blob_plain;f=README).

*****

Comments welcome.

Tom
 
Old 01-02-2012, 05:23 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default Minimum kernel version bump

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> I suggest the following news item:
>
> *****
>
> Users of unofficial kernels must enable devtmpfs support
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As of udev-176, we will no longer be able to boot kernels without
s/we will/the Arch Linux userspace tools will/
> devtmpfs support.
>
> The official Arch kernels (`kernel26-lts` and `linux`) have both had
> devtmpfs support for a long time, so only people who compile their own
> kernels are potentially affected by this change.
>
> More information about the kernel options required by udev is
> available in the udev [README](here:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=blob_plain;f=README).
>
> *****
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org