[systemd-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Separating gudev from systemd

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-05-31 at 02:24 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:21:06AM +0200, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 12:01 +0200, David Herrmann wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt <
> > > > > martin.pitt at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hey David,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > David Herrmann [2015-05-19 17:06 +0200]:
> > > > > > > We're about to remove gudev from the systemd repository, as 
> > > > > > > it 
> > > > > > > is in
> > > > > > > no way related to the systemd code-base, nor used by the 
> > > > > > > systemd
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This makes sense indeed. gudev used to be a standalone 
> > > > > > project 
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > it was merged into udev, so the circle is complete now :-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For those of us who already packaged gudev from systemd 219, 
> > > > > > would it
> > > > > > be possible to bump the current release to 220, so that gudev 
> > > > > > can 
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > packaged without renaming the tarball and doing ugly version 
> > > > > > numbers?
> > > > > > Monotonously increasing version numbers and all.. (Yes, there 
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > "epochs" in Debian, and I'm sure RPM has these too, but they 
> > > > > > might not
> > > > > > be available everywhere and are generally frowned upon)
> > > > > 
> > > > > While you are at it, why not bump it to 225 or something (just 
> > > > > to
> > > > > guarantee that the last systemd release with gudev has a lower 
> > > > > version
> > > > > number than gudev at that time, so people can switch over 
> > > > > whenever
> > > > > they want without having to worry about going backwards).
> > > > 
> > > > I intend to apply patches to systemd-git until we finally removed 
> > > > it
> > > > there. Given that we had 0 patches so far this year, it'll 
> > > > probably
> > > > stay that way. Hence, there's no hurry in replacing gudev from 
> > > > systemd
> > > > with libgudev. It'd be enough to just drop the systemd sub
> > > > -package 
> > > > and
> > > > provide a new libgudev package, even if that might not forcefully
> > > > update the package.
> > > > 
> > > > However, I see no reason not to bump it, so I'll gladly follow 
> > > > the
> > > > packager's demands:
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/systemd
> > > > -devs/libgudev/commit/f6203336e5b1ccf896acc506b54ec895fdae98b4
> > > > 
> > > > @Bastien: At your convenience, can you cherry-pick this and do 
> > > > another
> > > > release? Should have done this right away, sorry!
> > > 
> > > Could you file this in our new Bugzilla? Otherwise, I end up losing
> > > track of it...
> > 
> > Hi Bastien,
> > 
> > do you have any plans for the package in Fedora?
> 
> I don't plan on packaging it in the short term, so if there are
> volunteers, go right ahead.
OK, I'll prepare a review request.

@David: could you make a release of gudev 230? There's a few patches
on top gudev 219 currently, and I think it would be less error-prone
to package the released version with the bumped version number.

Zbyszek