The KV_min ebuild variable has regularly increased with > 171 versions from 2.6.34 to now 2.6.39 A / As 2.6.39 is the very last 2.6 version, I think that at least the Gentoo Udev Guide (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml) should be modified in order not to display : "udev is meant to be used in combination with a 2.6 kernel" B/ As several 2.6.32 releases of different *-sources still exist in the portage tree (some of them being even flagged "stable"; As 2.6.34 (the 5th long term stable version) is apparently still supported by upstream, my opinion is that some Gentoo policy should (must) be clearly written and made widely and easily accessible about Gentoo's engagements with regards to these kernel versions, verbi gratia : - Either : Gentoo no longer supports < 2.6.39 versions of kernel - Or : <=udev-171* will be maintained as long as < 2.6.39 versions are supported. C/ As KV_min has been constantly rising since > 171 versions, if further increases of the value of this variable are already expected, or highly probable in a near future, then my opinion is that users should be made aware of this. D/ The KV_reliable ebuild variable seems to have disappeared with >171 versions. Is there any intention to put it back with future stabilized versions or is it definitely abandoned ? E/ On a side note, I have not managed to find any detailed information about the technical reasons that make >171 versions no longer compatible with <2.6.39 kernels. If somebody could point to some link or to particular sections in udev code, I would be grateful. BTW : I do not want to bother the 196 stabilization process by making this bug explicitly block it. However, I do think that, from a strict project management standpoint, at least B should be considered as a serious implicit blocker. Reproducible: Always
Of course, another possible reading of paragraph B above is : - Will the kernel maintainers be ordered to remove all < 2.6.39 releases from their trees or - Are the kernel maintainers invited to make associated ebuilds depend on = virtual/udev-171 or to ewarn whatever.
(In reply to comment #0) > The KV_min ebuild variable has regularly increased with > 171 versions from > 2.6.34 to now 2.6.39 > > A / As 2.6.39 is the very last 2.6 version, I think that at least the Gentoo > Udev Guide (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml) should be modified > in order not to display : "udev is meant to be used in combination with a > 2.6 kernel" 197-r2 is being stabilized, 192-r2 is the only supported one at this point already (if speaking honestly) You have sys-fs/eudev for older kernels as they supposedly intend to keep support for older kernels (using compability patches) Can't document it before it hits stable, docs are about stable > E/ On a side note, I have not managed to find any detailed information about > the technical reasons that make >171 versions no longer compatible with > <2.6.39 kernels. If somebody could point to some link or to particular > sections in udev code, I would be grateful. WilliamH, can you remember which is the oldest kernel 197 supports? Is the 2.6.39 accurate in the ebuild? If it is, then if docs say 2.6.39, they are right > B/ As several 2.6.32 releases of different *-sources still exist in the > portage tree (some of them being even flagged "stable"; As 2.6.34 (the 5th > long term stable version) is apparently still supported by upstream, my > opinion is that some Gentoo policy should (must) be clearly written and made > widely and easily accessible about Gentoo's engagements with regards to > these kernel versions, verbi gratia : > - Either : Gentoo no longer supports < 2.6.39 versions of kernel > - Or : <=udev-171* will be maintained as long as < 2.6.39 versions are > supported. Only 171 is stable now and 197-r2 is being stabilized. Only latest stable is supported, unless the maintainer has made an exception. We keep older versions for convinience in tree but that includes the fact that users need to provide patches and deal with the issues themselfs mostly. > C/ As KV_min has been constantly rising since > 171 versions, if further > increases of the value of this variable are already expected, or highly > probable in a near future, then my opinion is that users should be made > aware of this. If it's not in ChangeLog of the package why it increased, maybe it should be yes, and i'm sure or almost sure other udev maintainers see this bug too :-) > D/ The KV_reliable ebuild variable seems to have disappeared with >171 > versions. Is there any intention to put it back with future stabilized > versions or is it definitely abandoned ? WilliamH? I don't find this useful myself. Overall I don't see anything to do here now myself, but waiting for others to comment
(In reply to comment #2) > 197-r2 is being stabilized, 192-r2 is the only supported one at this point typo, should say 197-r2 not 192-r2
(In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > The KV_min ebuild variable has regularly increased with > 171 versions from > > 2.6.34 to now 2.6.39 > > > > A / As 2.6.39 is the very last 2.6 version, I think that at least the Gentoo > > Udev Guide (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml) should be modified > > in order not to display : "udev is meant to be used in combination with a > > 2.6 kernel" > > 197-r2 is being stabilized, 192-r2 is the only supported one at this point > already (if speaking honestly) > You have sys-fs/eudev for older kernels as they supposedly intend to keep > support for older kernels (using compability patches) > Can't document it before it hits stable, docs are about stable > > > E/ On a side note, I have not managed to find any detailed information about > > the technical reasons that make >171 versions no longer compatible with > > <2.6.39 kernels. If somebody could point to some link or to particular > > sections in udev code, I would be grateful. > > WilliamH, can you remember which is the oldest kernel 197 supports? Is the > 2.6.39 accurate in the ebuild? If it is, then if docs say 2.6.39, they are > right Yes, see /usr/share/doc/udev-197*/README. It requires 2.6.39. > > B/ As several 2.6.32 releases of different *-sources still exist in the > > portage tree (some of them being even flagged "stable"; As 2.6.34 (the 5th > > long term stable version) is apparently still supported by upstream, my > > opinion is that some Gentoo policy should (must) be clearly written and made > > widely and easily accessible about Gentoo's engagements with regards to > > these kernel versions, verbi gratia : > > - Either : Gentoo no longer supports < 2.6.39 versions of kernel > > - Or : <=udev-171* will be maintained as long as < 2.6.39 versions are > > supported. > > Only 171 is stable now and 197-r2 is being stabilized. Only latest stable is > supported, unless the maintainer has made an exception. We keep older > versions for convinience in tree but that includes the fact that users need > to provide patches and deal with the issues themselfs mostly. Correct; we don't try to support older versions in udev. I do agree, however, that there is inconsistency in which kernels gentoo supports. If I go by what I see in the tree for gentoo-sources, we do not support anything below 3.x; however, this is not a udev maintainer issue. > > C/ As KV_min has been constantly rising since > 171 versions, if further > > increases of the value of this variable are already expected, or highly > > probable in a near future, then my opinion is that users should be made > > aware of this. > > If it's not in ChangeLog of the package why it increased, maybe it should be > yes, and i'm sure or almost sure other udev maintainers see this bug too :-) We don't have any way of knowing what upstream is going to do here. There is not a way to know when/if they are going to drop support for older kernels or raise their kernel requirements to a newer version. > > D/ The KV_reliable ebuild variable seems to have disappeared with >171 > > versions. Is there any intention to put it back with future stabilized > > versions or is it definitely abandoned ? > > WilliamH? I don't find this useful myself. No, I don't find KV_reliable to be useful either. > Overall I don't see anything to do here now myself, but waiting for others > to comment I don't really see anything for us to do either.
171-r10 seems to work down to 2.6.31 wrt https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/7 that was backported from eudev 171-r9 current stable is 2.6.32 197-r7 is 2.6.39 as mentioned by last comment, so docs are right then
(In reply to comment #5) > 197-r7 is 2.6.39 as mentioned by last comment, so docs are right then *I meant 197-r2 here, sorry again, darn
