On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > All, > > > > the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the > > list which versions of udev we really need in the tree. > > Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked >=181 because of > bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the situation will > stabilize. > > Since 171 is the latest stable, I would think most of our users are > on this version anyway. > > Since upstream seems to be unwilling to work with us, I think > we should seriously consider doing a fork. I know there are > other distros like Debian and Slackware who would be happy > to join us in that effort.
I'm not interested in a fork at this time. I think we can continue making udev work for us as is, and the way upstream is doing things isn't affecting binary package based distros, so we would basically be on our own. The deal is that upstream supports *running* udev separately, but not *building* it separately [1]. Their approach works wonderfully if you are a binary package based distro, so I'm not sure Debian, Slackware, etc would really have any incentive to join a fork at this point. William [1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds
pgpWkIspVxAgb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
