| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 07:34:20PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Alexis Ballier schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more |
| 4 |
> > to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by |
| 5 |
> > systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at |
| 6 |
> > some point". |
| 7 |
> > Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining sys-fs/udev standalone |
| 8 |
> > and don't intend to drop it. Even if you did, we could still pkgmove it |
| 9 |
> > to systemd. My conclusion is that this claim of udev being a dead end |
| 10 |
> > is pure FUD. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This claim was made by upstream, no less. And it refers to *running* |
| 13 |
> udev without systemd as opposed to building (which upstream already made |
| 14 |
> impossible). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Here is the exact wording: |
| 17 |
> "Unless the systemd-haters prepare another |
| 18 |
> kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will |
| 19 |
> not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that |
| 20 |
> point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call." |
| 21 |
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Not sure what about this is FUD. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Maybe FUD is the incorrect way to put it, but I think us doing something |
| 26 |
about it at this point is definitely premature since KDBUS is no where |
| 27 |
near ready to go -- they were forced to retract it a while back because |
| 28 |
they had to re-think the design. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
William |
Archives