| 1 |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 14:09:57 +0100 |
| 2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 5 |
> >> In a follow-up, upstream wrote about how you should only run udev together |
| 6 |
> >> with systemd, and if you don't want to do that (spelling as in original): |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> "we will not support the udev-on-netlink case anymore. I see three options: |
| 9 |
> >> a) fork things, b) live with systemd, c) if hate systemd that much, but |
| 10 |
> >> love udev so much, then implement an alternative userspace for kdbus to |
| 11 |
> >> do initialiuzation/policy/activation." |
| 12 |
> >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019664.html |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> So it seems a bit more than only initialization is needed. |
| 15 |
> > You're missing the third option which is a sane option, and jump |
| 16 |
> > straight to pitchforks. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Are you serious? The quoted line directly above your comment shows |
| 19 |
> clearly that I have read and understood the third option. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> > If Lennart's single statement from 2014 is a reason to use eudev |
| 22 |
> > instead of systemd-udevd, my statement from today is a more important |
| 23 |
> > reason not to use eudev. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> With the exception that Lennart Poettering is the lead developer of |
| 26 |
> systemd/udev, while such a thing cannot be said about you and eudev. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
He's lead developer of *systemd*. udev is a split part of systemd |
| 29 |
codebase which has specific maintainers. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
| 34 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives