| 1 |
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, |
| 3 |
> really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit |
| 4 |
> more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked |
| 5 |
> "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email, |
| 8 |
you would see that we had settled on eudev. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you |
| 11 |
> trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be |
| 12 |
> accomplished by: |
| 13 |
> - getting patches approved upstream |
| 14 |
> or: |
| 15 |
> - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and |
| 16 |
> applying them to each release |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its |
| 19 |
derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev |
| 22 |
> binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but |
| 23 |
> surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right? And is |
| 24 |
> something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working |
| 25 |
> udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a |
| 26 |
> regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more |
| 27 |
> processes to be spawned before booting is finished.) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
See the following: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3 |
Archives