1 |
On Wed, 01 May 2013 12:50:42 +0200 |
2 |
Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 12:04 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió: |
5 |
> [...] |
6 |
> > - other ~490 systemd units are missing at this time and writing them |
7 |
> > could also be a great GSoC project (don't look at me, I'm busy |
8 |
> > enough). |
9 |
> [...] |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Can't them be stolen from other distros running systemd? |
12 |
|
13 |
Yes and no. Fedora took the quick way of switching to systemd which |
14 |
means some of the units are really poor quality. For example, they rely |
15 |
on configs in /etc/sysconfig which we don't want to port to Gentoo. |
16 |
|
17 |
I'd prefer if someone took the task really serious and worked hard to |
18 |
get: |
19 |
|
20 |
a) fixed config handling in upstream packages (thus allowing for better |
21 |
unit files), |
22 |
|
23 |
b) really good unit files, |
24 |
|
25 |
c) bugs for upstreams to try to include those good files or fix |
26 |
the existing ones. |
27 |
|
28 |
> [...] |
29 |
> > The final outcome will hopefully be: |
30 |
> > - easier to migrate from/to systemd, at runtime, with NO recompilation |
31 |
> > at all (just enable USE=systemd and switch the device manager from |
32 |
> > *udev to systemd -- unless somebody wants to drop the udev part from |
33 |
> > systemd, if at all possible) |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Are udev and systemd-udev-part really equivalent? I mean, since they are |
36 |
> maintained by different people downstream, I am not sure if there would |
37 |
> be differences in how udev from udev ebuild and udev from systemd ebuild |
38 |
> will behave. |
39 |
|
40 |
There may be differences. For example, I'm not really interested |
41 |
in patching systemd with patches from eudev which will never make it |
42 |
upstream. Therefore, systemd-udevd won't work with old kernels systemd |
43 |
does not support. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Best regards, |
47 |
Michał Górny |