On 11/14/2012 07:53 PM, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > What are the problems they try to address?
Haven't you read this? https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/505 Plus the unwanted move from / to /usr, insane configuration file things not using /etc, and more RedHat-ismes which have been discussed at large in this list (let's not restart such thread). > The strong binding to > systemd is good and makes much sense to me, and udev is still usable > without systemd (and will be in the future). As they merged, it becomes less and less the case. You're seeing fixes patching udev to rename it systemd-udev, which really, is more advertizing / marketing than anything, but it shows what kind of direction its taking. To me, it looks like udev authors are forcing this so you have no choice but to use systemd. > Also, both systemd and udev are Linux-only, so the situation here at > Debian hasn't changed. Let's say that we choose another implementation of init (let's say, upstart or OpenRC, or even keep our old sysv-rc), then having systemd bound to udev and udev bound to systemd will not make things easy for us. > 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. > In general, I think a fork of udev would do much more harm than trying > to solve the problems in udev. In an ideal world, yes. But when the development goes wild, and upstream doesn't listen to others or refuses patches, what kind of alternative do you have? > Of course, they're free to fork, but > the separation will hurt both projects and everything relying on > udev/the fork. That is correct, but the pain is already there with the new versions of udev, and its likely it wont change back. Thomas -- 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/50a3c10d.3010...@debian.org
