| 1 |
Mike Frysinger posted on Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:26:52 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 08 Feb 2016 13:46, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I'm strongly against this, because: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> agreed. i also don't see any reasons in Patrick's e-mail to suggest the |
| 7 |
> current default is inadequate. "i don't like upstream" isn't relevant. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'd agree, except that the way we're running udev is strongly discouraged |
| 10 |
and generally not supported by upstream, with a statement that it /will/ |
| 11 |
break in the future, it's simply a matter of time. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Which makes a big difference when supporting that same specific use-case |
| 14 |
is the primary and arguably only reason the considered alternative exists. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
IOW, it's not about not liking upstream. It's about choosing a default |
| 17 |
that supports our default use-case. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 21 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 22 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives