June 2012 - crux-devel - lists.crux.nu

A proposal for the 'xorg' ports repo
by Matt Housh 19 Jun '12

19 Jun '12

Greetings, all, Since Tilman has retired and we've been reapportioning ports to some extent, I have a proposal for the future of the xorg ports repository. I'll keep it simple, the proposal is something like this: My idea is that the 'xorg' repo be adopted by the CRUX core team as far as maintenance and updates are concerned. Any core team member can make updates as needed to the repo following 3 simple guidelines: 1) The set of release tarballs at the x.org releases directory [1] is considered the "base approved" sources for the 'xorg' repository, the current release being X11R7.7 as indicated at the main x.org page [2]. 2) Appropriate updates for xorg-related CVE-IDs (or bugtraq announcements, etc.) are considered approved after testing that the updated version doesn't have any obvious build problems or bugs. In this case it would include a relevant CVE-ID link or the like in the commit message. We already do this most of the time. 3) Module updates from the xorg-announce mailing list [3] are considered approved after the same testing as guideline 2. Of course 2 and 3 will overlap at times as some module updates will likely occur due to CVE (or bugtraq, etc.) announcements. While this sounds a bit forced in writing that's really not my intent. My intent is simply to suggest a way to centralize the 'xorg' repo effort so that it's not a one-man show anymore. Theoretically this should allow us to keep on top of the updates pretty quickly when it's needed. The aforementioned testing obviously isn't a rigorous test of everything, hopefully upstream is doing that for us. It's just the normal expected diligence on the part of the port maintainers to make sure they port they're pushing works. Thoughts, comments, objections, etc.? Matt [1] http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/src/ [2] http://www.x.org/wiki/ [3] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-announce

3 2

Retiring
by Tilman Sauerbeck 17 Jun '12

17 Jun '12

Hi, as you know I haven't made significant contributions to CRUX in quite some time. Sadly I don't see this changing in the near future so I made up my mind and decided to retire from CRUX development. I just don't have the extra time and energy to pour into CRUX these days. My apologies for letting you down in recent months. Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

8 7

udev
by Juergen Daubert 16 Jun '12

16 Jun '12

Hello together, as you all may have already noticed, as of version 183 the udev sources has been merged into the systemd sources. At the time I read the first announcement from Kay Sievers that doesn't sound too bad [1] to me, because I got the impression that it would be easy to extract udev from systemd. Unfortunately in practice the whole thing looks like a big, bad issue. It's not possible to configure systemd in a way that udev can be build standalone, but you have to build the complete systemd stuff and manually extract what is needed for udev. Kay's comment on to that issue sounds quite different than the first announcement to me [2]. In the meantime we can see two attempts of other people to submit patches [3][4] to improve the situation, but with no "official" comment yet. Currently we don't have a practical issue with all of that, because we can stick with udev 182 for now. You may ask why I wrote all of this, it's just for your information and to summarize the whole situation. For me the whole udev/systemd source merge looks like a crude effort to force people to use systemd. But what can we do? Good question, in the long run it will be impossible to use udev standalone IMO, so we either have to switch to it or do something completely different. One possiblity might be mdev, a dynamic device/node creation program that comes with busybox, see [5] for a short description, together with devtmpfs which is a kind of devfs, see [6]. Btw, I'm not sure but it looks like our Per had put a comment to that article ;) [7] We, that means Jose, Fredrik and me, have done some initial tests with mdev, it looks not so bad at all. We will continue on testing it and report here our experiences. Thanks for the attention and a nice weekend to all. Juergen [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17392 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17444 [3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17478 [4] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.systemd.devel/5330 [5] http://git.busybox.net/busybox/plain/docs/mdev.txt [6] http://lwn.net/Articles/331818/ [7] http://lwn.net/Articles/332502/

1 0