Re-unifying udisks and storaged

Martin Pitt martin.pitt at
Fri Nov 25 14:32:22 UTC 2016

Hello storaged and udisks developers,

I spent some time on udisks life support today: mopping up some
patches in bugzilla, fix failure with latest glib, and the like. Much
of that affects storaged too (e. g. the glib test failure). But for
the most part, udisks is vastly undermaintained, altough there is a
high chance that I'll have more time for it from next year on.

But especially since the API and CLI of storaged got renamed back to
"udisks" and it's now a drop-in replacement, I think we should end
this forking and re-unify the projects again:

 * The current code base of storaged should become "the" official
   project, and the old udisks 2.1.x should be mothballed after a
   final merge of the recent fixes into storaged.

 * Personally I would prefer to leave development on GitHub, as it's
   much more powerful than fd.o in terms of CI and much more nicely
   integrated with issue reports.

 * We can decide later whether we want to mass-close the fd.o bugs at
   some point and ask people to re-submit issues against github if
   their report is still current. ("bug bankrupcy" + migration to GH).

 * storaged PRs do run some tests, but unfortunately the result links
   don't work at all so I don't know what they actually test. I would
   hope that at least build + src/tests/integration-test? If not,
   that's something I would like to work on/set up. E. g. offers full QEMU (although only on Ubuntu
   14.04, but it should suffice) which is enough to run the scsi_debug
   tests. If that's already the case in the current tests, then ignore
   me of course.

 * At some point I should probably become a storaged project member,
   but there is no urgency -- everyone including project members
   should always use PRs anyway.

What do you think about this in general?

My instinct tells me that the hardest part of this will (as usually)
be the naming: udisks or storaged. Quite a lot of upstream and
third-party software builds/links against/calls the "udisks" API, and
indeed storaged ships and provides just that, which is rather
confusing. Even more curiously, Fedora builds a "libstoraged" package
which ships

So it seems that renaming "storaged" to "udisks" would be the simpler
alternative as it would not require changes to external
software/packages. If you prefer to keep "storaged", then I think it's
better to rename the D-Bus API/library/ABI consistently and port the ~ 30
users of it (at least that's how many we have in Debian) to the new

We mentioned this a while ago already in some private email exchange,
but let's discuss it publicly on the ML now and actually reach a
decision this time. :-)



Martin Pitt                        |
Ubuntu Developer (  | Debian Developer  (
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the devkit-devel mailing list