lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:17PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> > I remain opposed to this half thought out trash of an ABI for the
>> > meta-data.
>>
>> You don't have to enable the metadata if you don't want to use it, it's
>> an option :)
>
> OK, _that_ argument needs to be stomped out. It had been used before,
> and it was a deliberate scam. There is no such thing as optional kernel
> interface, especially when udev/dbus/systemd crowd is nearby. We'd been
> through that excuse before; remember how devtmpfs was pushed in as "optional"?
>
> This is a huge red flag. On the level of "I need your account information
> to transfer $200M you might have inherited from my deceased client".
>
> Just to recap how it went the last time around: Kay kept pushing his piece of
> code into the tree, claiming that it was optional, that nobody who doesn't
> like it has to enable it, so what's the problem? OK, in it went. And pretty
> soon udev (maintained by the same... meticulously honorable person) had
> stopped working on the kernels that didn't have that enabled.
>
> We had been there before. To paraphrase another... meticulously honorable
> person, "if you didn't want something relied upon, why have you put it into the
> kernel?" Said person is on the record as having no problem whatsoever with
> adding dependencies to the bottom of userland stack.

It appears that, if kdbus is merged, upstream udev may end up requiring it:

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html

Grumble.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-15 04:01    [W:0.234 / U:0.856 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site