| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:27:48 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Michał Górny posted on Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:15:10 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:51:50 +0800 Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> |
| 7 |
> > wrote: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> >> When upstream moved the udev sources to the systemd repo, they |
| 10 |
> >> promised that udev would continue to be able to be used separately |
| 11 |
> >> from systemd. We should hold them to that promise. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> If they break their promise (as it seems they are bent on doing), |
| 14 |
> >> then we should go ahead with the fork as discussed earlier. I'm |
| 15 |
> >> sure other distros such as Debian and Slackware would be happy to |
| 16 |
> >> join us in that effort. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > If we fork, then I would expect systemd to actually require its own |
| 19 |
> > udev which means that systemd would need to build it anyway. What's |
| 20 |
> > the point? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no need |
| 24 |
> to build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Who forces you to do otherwise? I really don't see what this thread is |
| 27 |
all about. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives