| 1 |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:40:23AM -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi all |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Recently, there was a firestorm on the gentoo-user list over the idea |
| 5 |
> that udev would eventually require /usr to be on the same physical |
| 6 |
> parition as /, or else use initramfs, which is its own can of worms. I'm |
| 7 |
> not a programmer, let alone a developer. Rather than merely ranting, I |
| 8 |
> went and searched for an alternative. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
udev is not the problem here, please do not shoot the messenger. And |
| 11 |
read the documentation for what is going on before making statements |
| 12 |
like "we have to replace udev", otherwise it comes across very foolish. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Forking udev is probably not an option. The udev lead developer is a |
| 15 |
> Redhat employee, and his direction seems to be to drag everybody in |
| 16 |
> Redhat's direction. Our community doesn't have Redhat's billions. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Since when was udev written by RedHat's billions? You do know the |
| 19 |
history of it, right? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> The other option is to drop udev entirely. As an example, I suggest |
| 22 |
> looking at Alpine Linux http://alpinelinux.org/ It's a lightweight |
| 23 |
> server-oriented distro. It uses busybox's mdev instead of udev, and |
| 24 |
> some other mdev substitutes in place of standard packages. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Haha, mdev, yeah right. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Have fun with that... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
greg k-h |
Archives