Discussion:
[ANNOUNCE] Separating gudev from systemd
(too old to reply)
David Herrmann
2015-05-19 15:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Hi

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. To preserve backwards compatibility, gudev was extracted into
a separate repository and is now managed on gnome.org:

Homepage: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/libgudev
Bugtracker: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/browse.cgi?product=libgudev
Releases: http://download.gnome.org/sources/libgudev/
Repository: http://git.gnome.org/browse/libgudev/

ArchLinux: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/li/libgudev/PKGBUILD
Others: TBD

The new libgudev project is binary-compatible to gudev as provided by
systemd-219. Distributions are encouraged to pass --disable-gudev to
systemd and provide gudev via the libgudev project. We haven't decided
at which point gudev will be dropped from the systemd repository, but
chances are systemd-221 will not include it, anymore.

If there are any issues, please let me know.

Thanks
David
Martin Pitt
2015-05-20 06:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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)

Thanks,

Martin
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
Tom Gundersen
2015-05-20 06:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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).

Cheers,

Tom
David Herrmann
2015-05-20 10:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi
Post by Tom Gundersen
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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!

Thanks
David
Bastien Nocera
2015-05-27 09:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt <
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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
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...
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2015-05-31 02:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt <
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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
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?

Zbyszek
Bastien Nocera
2015-06-01 16:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt <
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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
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.

Cheers
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2015-06-01 16:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt <
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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
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
Bastien Nocera
2015-06-01 16:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Martin Pitt <
Post by Martin Pitt
Hey David,
Post by David Herrmann
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
-)
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
https://github.com/systemd
-devs/libgudev/commit/f6203336e5b1ccf896acc506b54ec895fdae98b
4
@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.
/me patiently waits for the bugzilla patches to be uploaded...
David Herrmann
2015-06-01 17:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
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.
Thanks a lot!
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
@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.
I only found a typo-fix on top of 219. Now backported to libgudev and
pushed into the gnome bugzilla. Same for the 230 version bump. If
anything else is missing, please let me know.

Thanks
David
Bastien Nocera
2015-06-02 10:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
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.
Thanks a lot!
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
@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.
I only found a typo-fix on top of 219. Now backported to libgudev and
pushed into the gnome bugzilla. Same for the 230 version bump. If
anything else is missing, please let me know.
And libgudev 230 is out. Sorry about the delay, and thank you for
posting those patches on the bugzilla, much better workflow for me :)

https://download.gnome.org/sources/libgudev/230/

Cheers
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2015-06-02 12:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Post by Bastien Nocera
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
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.
Thanks a lot!
Post by Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
@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.
I only found a typo-fix on top of 219. Now backported to libgudev and
pushed into the gnome bugzilla. Same for the 230 version bump. If
anything else is missing, please let me know.
And libgudev 230 is out. Sorry about the delay, and thank you for
posting those patches on the bugzilla, much better workflow for me :)
https://download.gnome.org/sources/libgudev/230/
Thanks!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227334
Reviews and co-maintaners welcome...

Zbyszek

Michael Biebl
2015-05-29 08:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
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. To preserve backwards compatibility, gudev was extracted into
Homepage: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/libgudev
Bugtracker: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/browse.cgi?product=libgudev
Releases: http://download.gnome.org/sources/libgudev/
Repository: http://git.gnome.org/browse/libgudev/
ArchLinux: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/li/libgudev/PKGBUILD
Others: TBD
FYI

Ubuntu/Debian:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-systemd/systemd.git/commit/?h=experimental&id=ff3e6f6fc82adeeb5341b3bbd9824b2591965af6
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/libgudev.git/commit/?id=c48853e54064485c8c1d4904139e6050f3f6462e


Thanks for splitting off gudev. It makes bootstrapping systemd on new
architectures quite a bit simpler.

Cheers,
Michael
--
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?
Colin Walters
2015-06-01 20:05:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Herrmann
Hi
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. To preserve backwards compatibility, gudev was extracted into
Homepage: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/libgudev
Bugtracker: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/browse.cgi?product=libgudev
Releases: http://download.gnome.org/sources/libgudev/
Repository: http://git.gnome.org/browse/libgudev/
ArchLinux: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/li/libgudev/PKGBUILD
Others: TBD
For reference:

https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-continuous/commit/?id=abc335746078670e18e90cacf4983aef44cacf63

updated GNOME Continuous, and it will now start building and shipping libgudev git master.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...