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 > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-10-2012, 06:30 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default rfc: old udev versions

All,

the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.

I know that all versions before 133 must go because openrc has a
requirement for at least that version.

I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
back to 2.6.16 (I have no idea why)?

Any thoughts would be helpful.

Thanks,

William
 
Old 07-10-2012, 07:53 PM
"Andreas K. Huettel"
 
Default rfc: old udev versions

> I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
> guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
> but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
> about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
> back to 2.6.16 (I have no idea why)?

Well just for the record my vserver (xen domU) hoster is still going strong
with 2.6.30 ... I'm trying to get that changed but with 10€/month I'm probably
not the strongest financial incentive... a pity because otherwise I'm really
very happy with the company... -a

--

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
 
Old 07-11-2012, 02:48 AM
Matthew Marlowe
 
Default rfc: old udev versions

> I've looked at the kernel packages we have in /usr/portage, but have no
> guide there either. If I go by gentoo-sources, I could get rid of all
> but very recent versions of udev, but I have heard some things also
> about people using older kernels. Also, vanilla-sources goes all the way
> back to 2.6.16 (I have no idea why)?
>

I think, at the very least, we want to support kernel 2.6.32 or later
via whatever methods are required in Gentoo to allow those existing
systems to keep running and recompile as needed. 2.6.32 is used by a
number of mainstream distributions as a long term stable release.
And, cautious admins migrating to Gentoo or supporting the same apps
on multiple distributions may want to continue to stick with that
kernel release for awhile. I'm also aware that 2.6.36 was widely
deployed for gentoo servers around here, although some of those
systems have started to migrate to 3.2. I'm not sure how much of a
need there would be for anything older than 2.6.32. 2.6.32 would seem
to be a reasonable cutoff.

As for udev specifically, 171 is what is deployed on most boxes here
to avoid any possible need for an initrd or other possible bugs with
newer releases... Reading the udev-171 ebuild, it appears it supports
>2.6.16 so I'm not sure if there is any need for udev versions earlier
than 171.
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:42 AM
Ben de Groot
 
Default rfc: old udev versions

On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> All,
>
> the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
> list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.

Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked >=181 because of
bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the situation will
stabilize.

Since 171 is the latest stable, I would think most of our users are
on this version anyway.

Since upstream seems to be unwilling to work with us, I think
we should seriously consider doing a fork. I know there are
other distros like Debian and Slackware who would be happy
to join us in that effort.

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
 
Old 07-11-2012, 04:42 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default rfc: old udev versions

On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the
> > list which versions of udev we really need in the tree.
>
> Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked >=181 because of
> bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the situation will
> stabilize.
>
> Since 171 is the latest stable, I would think most of our users are
> on this version anyway.
>
> Since upstream seems to be unwilling to work with us, I think
> we should seriously consider doing a fork. I know there are
> other distros like Debian and Slackware who would be happy
> to join us in that effort.

I'm not interested in a fork at this time. I think we can continue
making udev work for us as is, and the way upstream is doing things
isn't affecting binary package based distros, so we would basically be
on our own.

The deal is that upstream supports *running* udev separately, but not
*building* it separately [1]. Their approach works wonderfully if you
are a binary package based distro, so I'm not sure Debian,
Slackware, etc would really have any incentive to join a fork at this
point.

William

[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 PM.

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