On 08/05/2013 06:19 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 04/08/13 05:56, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 05:02:39AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote
Looking forward to lastrite sys-fs/eudev just like
sys-apps/module-init-tools already was removed as unnecessary later on.
You want eudev removed, and Lennart Poettering wants udev on
non-systemd systems dropped. Add those two items together, and we get
systemd rammed down our throats...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
(Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case
you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we
can drop that support entirely.)
That might be the systemd upstream view point, but definately isn't mine.
Fact is that udev can be built and ran standalone without systemd and
you don't need eudev for that.
For now. And you get a ton of bloat. I removed over 300 unused
functions. Furthermore, there is a problem with iface renaming which
Ian solved and legacy features are not there. We will continue to
support a bootable system with separate /usr without need for an intramfs.
But most importantly, you have a different upstream with a different
attitude towards the users. Even if the codebase were identical, this
makes all the difference to those who want a system the way they want
and not the way systemd upstream wants. Your arguments have been
ineffective at convincing people because you dismiss this critical point.
If udev upstream makes it impossible to build, or run it standalone then
we need to patch or fork it -- but that's far from now.
In any case there will always be sys-fs/udev and it will never require
sys-apps/systemd.
Futhermore sys-fs/udev will be the default for long as sys-apps/openrc
is the default.
I mean, why the heck fork something too early when upstream still
supports udev on non-systemd init systems?!
- Samuli
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197
