[systemd-devel] setting up to allow separate udev and systemd builds

[Kok, Auke-jan H]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:32 AM, William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Auke,
>
> I will answer your concerns as best as I can below.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 03:35:09PM -0700, Kok, Auke-jan H wrote:
>> 1) Timing. systemd+udevd just got merged.  We had a huge build system
>> change. Let's not change it drastically again entirely now.
>
> From the point of view of a source based distro, the build system
> as it currently stands is broken. Upstream supports running udev without
> systemd, so why not building udev standalone as well, especially since
> there is interest in doing the work?

It's not broken at all. What is broken is the assumption that one can just
run `make install` willy nilly in a source distro and overwrite files in
the live system.

This is a design problem in ALL source based distro's (including the one
I worked on for years) and can't be fixed by upstream. Source distro's
should really work on doing a proper `make DESTDIR= install` or use
fakeroot/chroot installs and buffer the installation of files before the
real rootfs is overwritten.

Not solving that is an error that the source distributions should solve,
and definitely should not be the reason for an upstream project to jump
to the aid of source distros.

>> 2) Splitting up of Makefile.am. Sounds like a disaster waiting to
>> happen and a reversal of the whole idea of merging the code in the
>> first place.
>
> Irrelivant.  If the maintainers ask me to rework the patches so that
> Makefile.am is not split, I will do that. Like I have said, I am not
> attempting to change the _default_ state of things.

I think it's relevant. But, Kay/Lennert will eventually decide. Splitting
up the file will certainly complicate maintenance, and many people frown
on tricks with multiple makefiles.

>> 3) Urgency: none to low. Source distro's would be perfectly fine
>> building and maintaining the few security and bug fixes needed. AFAIK
>> the merge only removed features in udevd.
>
> Possibly, but why should we fork udev when it isn't necessary?
>
>> 4) Can be maintained out of tree for now: Nothing prevents gentoo from
>> keeping this patch out of tree for their purposes.
>
>  Yes, we could, but what about exherbo, funtoo, linux from scratch and
>  the other source based distros that may be out there?

they could pull the patch from gentoo's repository.

I think this patch would be a lot more acceptable if you drop the split
Makefile.am, remove the --disable-systemd option and just create an extra
"make install-udev" target.

It would be a lot smaller too.


Cheers,


Auke