| 1 |
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 03:50:24PM +0100, Steven J Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs: |
| 3 |
> >> <dberkholz> sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new |
| 4 |
> >> udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old |
| 5 |
> >> udev, mask new, or whatever" |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > systemd and udev are being merged into one tarball. For the |
| 8 |
> > "foreseeable |
| 9 |
> > future", it will still build 2 separate binaries. What happens down the |
| 10 |
> > road if/when it all becomes one combined binary? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> Well I've read assertions that it will be possible to build udev without |
| 13 |
> systemd for distros and users who want it, and this is supposedly a firm |
| 14 |
> commitment into the future. Then again, experience doesn't bode well for |
| 15 |
> those kind of commitments. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> (It's much easier to introduce coupling between software in the same |
| 18 |
> package. GregKH has also mooted a tightly-coupled "core" Linux distro, which |
| 19 |
> afaict is the same reasoning as GnomeOS, and /that/ sounds like a |
| 20 |
> clusterfsck waiting to happen.) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
"mooted"? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And since when does having a set of tightly coupled base libraries and |
| 25 |
systems that work well together somehow turn into "GnomeOS"? Reaching |
| 26 |
like that is just foolish on your part. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
greg k-h |
Archives