Greg KH wrote: > Steven J Long wrote: >> And that is what we were discussing: possible future coupling between the >> two, which is much easier to do when the sources are part of the >> same package. .. >> OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a >> design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close >> integration with the underlying udev implementation. > > Nope, can't make that assurance at all. > > Actually, maybe I can make the opposite assurance
Well, thanks for being straightforward about it: clearly you're keeping the option of udev requiring systemd open, and in fact want to move toward that. > , let's see what the future brings... :) > Yeah, we'll see :) You have udev working nicely, fulfilling a whole load of use-cases, and now you want to upwardly-couple to er, a service-manager. Running as pid 1, no less, even though it's not necessary. (I predict that latter decision will get reversed in a while, just like a /usr partition went from an anachronism to a grand new design, and xml config formats are no longer talked about; thankfully binary logs got slammed back out the door in-kernel at least[1].) Not build another thing utilising udev and dbus, not even one closely integrated, but upwardly-couple every Linux system to that new userspace project. Good luck with that. steveL. [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/ -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
