On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> The only time I see eudev replacing udev as our default is if the
> systemd guys actually kill udev on non-systemd systems.
>
Seems likely to me, but anticipating about 300 replies to your post, I
think we're all agreed that we'll do what ma
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:59:14PM -0500, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 14/01/13 01:06 PM, Oleksii Shevchuk wrote:
> > Hi list!
> >
> > After introducing eudev, is there any reason to do systemd/udev
> > split?
> >
>
> Ask in 6 months to a ye
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14/01/13 01:06 PM, Oleksii Shevchuk wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> After introducing eudev, is there any reason to do systemd/udev
> split?
>
Ask in 6 months to a year, after eudev is fully established and has a
solid track record.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNAT
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure.
++
If it costs me 1200 seconds of CPU time and 40 millicents in
electricity twice I year I can live with that...
Rich
2013/1/14 Diego Elio Pettenò :
> I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure.
You are definitely not alone (though I'm not a gentoo dev).
I think it makes sense to keep it split as long as udev is buildable
without systemd and until eudev proves to be stable enough. Af
Yes.
I don't want systemd and I don't want eudev. And I'm not alone I'm sure.
Hi list!
After introducing eudev, is there any reason to do systemd/udev split?
