| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 |
| 4 |
> > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can still be |
| 7 |
> >> extracted and run standalone from systemd. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > and even with that, I don't think there is anything preventing using |
| 10 |
> > systemd-udev from an openrc boot, is it ? (ie, have systemd installed |
| 11 |
> > but booting with openrc) |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Correct, you can uninstall sys-fs/(e)udev and install |
| 15 |
> sys-apps/systemd, then boot with openrc, and udev will work just fine. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is correct. udev does not require systemd in order to run; the only |
| 18 |
thing it needs is the systemd build environment since there is common |
| 19 |
source code. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The primary reason we have sys-fs/udev in the tree these days is so |
| 22 |
people can have upstream udev without installing systemd. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
In theory, we could lastrites sys-fs/udev and make sys-apps/systemd the default |
| 25 |
udev provider, but I'm sure that change would be even more controversial |
| 26 |
than what we are discussing. ;-) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
William |
Archives