| 1 |
On 25/02/14 15:26, Thomas D. wrote: |
| 2 |
> No, not locations. My choice was not to use systemd. Now a package, |
| 3 |
> sys-fs/udev, turns into systemd-udev... |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Also: If it wouldn't be possible to keep sys-fs/udev as it was I |
| 6 |
> wouldn't bother that much. But as said, Lars (Polynomial-C) showed us |
| 7 |
> that we don't need to turn sys-fs/udev into systemd-udev... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> So I am asking why we are doing that for people who don't use systemd? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Nobody is doing anything except using upstream names for those |
| 12 |
files and directories as defined in the Makefile.am |
| 13 |
I can't speak for everybody, but in general, we are not in the business |
| 14 |
of randomly changing things when there is no technical reason for it |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I couldn't care less about the so called 'pro-systemd', or 'anti-systemd' |
| 17 |
propaganda that's out there. And nobody can influence me with that |
| 18 |
crap for udev's maintenance. I'm completely neutral to that spat, |
| 19 |
and even if I weren't, I wouldn't bring that crap over to udev's |
| 20 |
maintenance. |
| 21 |
What requires to be done will be done, to keep the functionality up-par |
| 22 |
with the sys-fs/udev-171 we had as longstanding version before. |
| 23 |
Only technical arguments have weight. |
Archives