Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:45:41 -0600
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier
> > <aballier@g.o> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600
> > > William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:
> > >
> > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can
> > >> still be extracted and run standalone from systemd.
> > >
> > > and even with that, I don't think there is anything preventing
> > > using systemd-udev from an openrc boot, is it ? (ie, have systemd
> > > installed but booting with openrc)
> > >
> >
> > Correct, you can uninstall sys-fs/(e)udev and install
> > sys-apps/systemd, then boot with openrc, and udev will work just
> > fine.
>
> This is correct. udev does not require systemd in order to run; the
> only thing it needs is the systemd build environment since there is
> common source code.
>
> The primary reason we have sys-fs/udev in the tree these days is so
> people can have upstream udev without installing systemd.
>
> In theory, we could lastrites sys-fs/udev and make sys-apps/systemd
> the default udev provider, but I'm sure that change would be even
> more controversial than what we are discussing. ;-)

It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more
to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by
systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at
some point".

Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining sys-fs/udev standalone
and don't intend to drop it. Even if you did, we could still pkgmove it
to systemd. My conclusion is that this claim of udev being a dead end
is pure FUD.

Alexis.