On 11/14/12 19:53, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > What are the problems they try to address?
Removal of features, broken build system, etc. Just the little things that make things exciting (and we prefer things to be boring so we can sleep at night) Plus an unpredictable upstream that can't be trusted anymore. (See recent rants by kernel people about udev breaking firmware loading completely because LOL FASTOR) > The strong binding to > systemd is good and makes much sense to me, If you wanted to use systemd maybe. But since we don't want it it's a strong negative point > and udev is still usable > without systemd (and will be in the future). It's slowly losing features or getting broken in funny ways because upstream wants you to migrate into the exciting future. It's becoming more and more troublesome, and we don't know what they'll change next just because they can > Also, both systemd and udev are Linux-only, so the situation here at > Debian hasn't changed. > The problems we had in the past with bad udev+kernel combinations and > changing config file format etc. can also be addressed in udev, > without the need of forking. Most of the issues we've had since the merge have been declared features by upstream. Discussing with them appears to be futile. > In general, I think a fork of udev would do much more harm than trying > to solve the problems in udev. Of course, they're free to fork, but > the separation will hurt both projects and everything relying on > udev/the fork. An API-compatible fork should not cause any problems. Since we cannot cooperate with upstream I don't see any other way forward. I do agree that it's "stupid" - would be nice if we could work together etc. etc. > Regards, > Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50a3a387.4020...@gentoo.org
