| 1 |
On 01/08/13 19:11, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/08/13 17:36, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So esystemd and ekmod now? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> You know my stance on systemd, for me it is a jumble of bad and |
| 6 |
> interesting ideas not so soundly implemented, I do not have much time or |
| 7 |
> will to play with that thing. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> kmod on the other hand had a pressing issue and getting it fixed-ish |
| 10 |
> took about an evening while having Federico see around it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> lu |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
still, first the patch goes upstream and after upstream review and |
| 16 |
commit to git it goes in tree |
| 17 |
otherwise we opt to the fallback and disable udev from lvm2/cryptsetup |
| 18 |
when USE=static is enabled (like cryptsetup upstream suggested to me) |
| 19 |
gentoo-specific patches mangling namespace of udev, kmod, whatever |
| 20 |
doesn't sound good at all |
| 21 |
however working it with upstream sounds great |
Archives