On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:28:08AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote > <dberkholz> who's going to either "port" udev as necessary, or maintain an > old version forever? > <Chainsaw> I will keep an old version going until the end of time. > <Chainsaw> dberkholz: My plan is to patch reasonable behaviour back into > udev, and going with the upstream releases as long as it is feasible.
I use busybox's mdev, and it works fine for my simple system. See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev The busybox web site is http://busybox.net/ and the maintenance is handled by them. The mailing list info is at http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox > To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs: > <dberkholz> sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new > udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old > udev, mask new, or whatever" systemd and udev are being merged into one tarball. For the "foreseeable future", it will still build 2 separate binaries. What happens down the road if/when it all becomes one combined binary? > And again, I ask: if it were *not* about running udev without an > initramfs, then why would anyone even be discussing the possibility > of patching or forking? Forking/patching udev would be a major undertaking. Maybe we'd be better off making add-ons for mdev to provide missing udev functionality. Note that busybox is intended for embedded systems, and they're not going to add major additional functionality to the base code. That's why I suggest optional add-ons for any additional functionality. BTW, how would a non-programmer (at least not C programmer) like me forward these ideas to the Gentoo Council? -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org>
