| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:27:41 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Personally, I think a consolidated systemd/udev package is the best |
| 6 |
>> way to go here. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> A consolidated package means that: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> - every change made by udev developers would have to be reviewed by |
| 11 |
> systemd team to make sure it doesn't break systemd. udev developers |
| 12 |
> don't use systemd; |
| 13 |
> - every change made by systemd developers would have to be reviewed by |
| 14 |
> udev team to make sure it doesn't break openrc. systemd developers |
| 15 |
> usually don't run openrc; |
| 16 |
> - udev developers will force me to use eclasses they like and force |
| 17 |
> their coding style on me; |
| 18 |
> - i will force eclasses I like and my coding style on udev developers; |
| 19 |
> - new udev wouldn't be able to be stabilized without systemd being |
| 20 |
> stabilized at the same time (and I don't really think systemd is in |
| 21 |
> any condition to go stable), |
| 22 |
> - there will be a few random flags which will either work or not, |
| 23 |
> depending on a state of magical switch flag, |
| 24 |
> - and after all, the ebuild will be basically one big use-conditional. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So, since this is blocking up development and people actually solving |
| 27 |
things, could we just have virtual/udev and be done with it? Upstream |
| 28 |
obviously reneged on their promise to make the component parts |
| 29 |
buildable separately, so the virtual seems like the only sane choice |
| 30 |
right now. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
/Peter |
Archives