5 ms·

That's what code libraries were intended for.

zxzax 5y ago
Not sure why you're saying that -- moving it to a library is basically what happened. The libudev code got moved to libsystemd, and now libudev is a wrapper around that.
- cyberdelica 5y ago
  > Not sure why you're saying that -- moving it to a library is basically what happened. The libudev code got moved to libsystemd, and now libudev is a wrapper around that. Oh, so now one has to include "libsystemd" if one wants to use "udev" - is that what you're writing? Hence the original comment: > By devouring the udev project, the systemd maintainers have guaranteed that dealing with USB devices on non-systemd systems was going to be a giant pain.
  - zxzax 5y ago
    I don't understand, is this not what you were asking for initially? libsystemd.so is just a shared library, it's not any more of a giant pain than any other library.
    - cyberdelica 5y ago
      Why not just include libudev, in systemd instead?
      - zxzax 5y ago
        Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C, but the amount of unnecessary code duplication across them is awful. The standard library features provided by glibc are extremely inadequate for modern applications, every non-trivial C project I've seen starts to include their own private implementations of various C++ things like hashmaps, binary trees, dynamically sized strings, unicode support, async event loops, etc. For utilities that have to interact with low level kernel APIs it's even worse, every library seems to have to reimplement their own parsing of various other random things like netlink, or in the various pseudo filesystems like sysfs, procfs, cgroupfs, etc etc, the situation is really way out of hand. I don't know how to solve this in a reasonable manner beyond what systemd is already doing. Yes people will complain that they have a systemd dependency now but what else can you do? This is the exact reason the BSDs update the kernel, libc, init and core utils in tandem and consider a lot of the kernel API to be private, Linux was just slow to catch on in that regard.
        cyberdelica 5y ago
        > Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't want to call you out for making a disingenuous argument, but it was either subsumed by systemd for code duplication reasons, or it wasn't?! Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That would mean, anyone looking to incorporate udev into a system, could do so without depending on libsystemd. Instead, it would seem udev code, has been subsumed by libsystemd (in your own words) - which would appear to the sceptical eye, as a power play on the part of red hat - to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logically end with them also using systemd itself. > I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C [...] Yes, I have.
        jhasse 5y ago
        > Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That's basically what has been done. The library was named libsystemd. You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd".
        cyberdelica 5y ago
        How do you compile udev, without "libsystemd", or without glibc? > You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd". Ah, the ad hominem. Do you have a problem with the Unix Philosophy?
        cwyers 5y ago
        No, you just categorically don't understand. libsystemd is not systemd the init system, it doesn't require systemd to be running, it is simply the name of "the shared library that everything developed under the systemd project uses for common code." Now, you can argue until the cows come home that you'd be happier if udev, systemd, and libredhathatesyou (or some other name for libsystemd that doesn't include systemd in it) were all in different Git repos, but since you can run udev without a dependency on systemd running on the system, that seems like a pretty low-stakes dispute.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Feel free to rename it libNotSystemdButAGeneralSharedLib and link that.. it is named systemd, not systemd-the-init-system itself.
- mixmastamyk 5y ago
  I'd expect the opposite, if someone said they moved something to a library.

Not sure why you're saying that -- moving it to a library is basically what happened. The libudev code got moved to libsystemd, and now libudev is a wrapper around that.

cyberdelica 5y ago
> Not sure why you're saying that -- moving it to a library is basically what happened. The libudev code got moved to libsystemd, and now libudev is a wrapper around that. Oh, so now one has to include "libsystemd" if one wants to use "udev" - is that what you're writing? Hence the original comment: > By devouring the udev project, the systemd maintainers have guaranteed that dealing with USB devices on non-systemd systems was going to be a giant pain.
- zxzax 5y ago
  I don't understand, is this not what you were asking for initially? libsystemd.so is just a shared library, it's not any more of a giant pain than any other library.
  - cyberdelica 5y ago
    Why not just include libudev, in systemd instead?
    - zxzax 5y ago
      Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C, but the amount of unnecessary code duplication across them is awful. The standard library features provided by glibc are extremely inadequate for modern applications, every non-trivial C project I've seen starts to include their own private implementations of various C++ things like hashmaps, binary trees, dynamically sized strings, unicode support, async event loops, etc. For utilities that have to interact with low level kernel APIs it's even worse, every library seems to have to reimplement their own parsing of various other random things like netlink, or in the various pseudo filesystems like sysfs, procfs, cgroupfs, etc etc, the situation is really way out of hand. I don't know how to solve this in a reasonable manner beyond what systemd is already doing. Yes people will complain that they have a systemd dependency now but what else can you do? This is the exact reason the BSDs update the kernel, libc, init and core utils in tandem and consider a lot of the kernel API to be private, Linux was just slow to catch on in that regard.
      - cyberdelica 5y ago
        > Because that would not reduce code duplication. I don't want to call you out for making a disingenuous argument, but it was either subsumed by systemd for code duplication reasons, or it wasn't?! Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That would mean, anyone looking to incorporate udev into a system, could do so without depending on libsystemd. Instead, it would seem udev code, has been subsumed by libsystemd (in your own words) - which would appear to the sceptical eye, as a power play on the part of red hat - to force other distributions into using libsystemd, which would logically end with them also using systemd itself. > I don't know if you have ever worked on any of the low-level Linux libraries written in C [...] Yes, I have.
        jhasse 5y ago
        > Duplicate code, could be refactored out to a shared library, that could then be incorporated in both udev, and systemd. That's basically what has been done. The library was named libsystemd. You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd".
        cyberdelica 5y ago
        How do you compile udev, without "libsystemd", or without glibc? > You seem to have a problem with the name "libsystemd". Ah, the ad hominem. Do you have a problem with the Unix Philosophy?
        cwyers 5y ago
        No, you just categorically don't understand. libsystemd is not systemd the init system, it doesn't require systemd to be running, it is simply the name of "the shared library that everything developed under the systemd project uses for common code." Now, you can argue until the cows come home that you'd be happier if udev, systemd, and libredhathatesyou (or some other name for libsystemd that doesn't include systemd in it) were all in different Git repos, but since you can run udev without a dependency on systemd running on the system, that seems like a pretty low-stakes dispute.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Feel free to rename it libNotSystemdButAGeneralSharedLib and link that.. it is named systemd, not systemd-the-init-system itself.
mixmastamyk 5y ago
I'd expect the opposite, if someone said they moved something to a library.