| 1 |
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:53:48 +0100 |
| 2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> William Hubbs schrieb: |
| 5 |
> > Maybe FUD is the incorrect way to put it, but I think us doing |
| 6 |
> > something about it at this point is definitely premature since |
| 7 |
> > KDBUS is no where near ready to go -- they were forced to retract |
| 8 |
> > it a while back because they had to re-think the design. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> kdbus got sent for inclusion in the kernel, and they were sure ready |
| 11 |
> to pull off their plan back then if kdbus had been accepted. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Whether switching to eudev now is premature is actually the central |
| 14 |
> issue of this whole discussion. Given that dropping support for udev |
| 15 |
> on non-systemd systems was narrowly avoided once, and upstream leaves |
| 16 |
> no doubt that they are ready to do so once their redesigned kernel |
| 17 |
> message bus goes upstream, I say describing such a move as |
| 18 |
> "definitely premature" is not warranted. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Best regards, |
| 22 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thank you for bringing this information to the forefront of this debate. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So, is it not better for us Gentoo-er's that wish to not install |
| 27 |
systemd, to set the default non-systemd udev to eudev. In that way, |
| 28 |
maybe eudev will get more contributed support and Anthony more eyes on |
| 29 |
things. It seems that unless kdbus is perpetually rejected by the |
| 30 |
kernel team... it is only a matter of time. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So, I say, we've all had enough bickering about the subject. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Time for a final vote! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If we had all spent our time working on real problems as |
| 38 |
we've spent reading this never ending debate mail... |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
but alas, this will be yet another item that must be decided by the |
| 41 |
council. |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives