1 |
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:44:59AM +0200, Stelian Ionescu wrote |
2 |
> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 18:38 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Greg KH wrote |
4 |
> > > What specifically is your objection to udev today? Is it doing things |
5 |
> > > you don't like? Too big? Something else? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Today, it requires an initramfs if /usr is not physically on /. That |
8 |
> > is due in large part to the fact that it has been rolled into the |
9 |
> > systemd tarball, and inherited some of systemd's code and limitations, |
10 |
> > despite the fact that udev is still a separate binary. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> This is absolutely and definitely false. Where did you hear such |
13 |
> nonsense ? |
14 |
|
15 |
1) Did you sleep through the /usr and initramfs flamewars? |
16 |
http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken |
17 |
|
18 |
2) The udev sources have merged into the systemd tarball. See... |
19 |
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17392 And note |
20 |
the date is April 3rd, not April 1st. If they were really as worried |
21 |
about compatability as they claim, you wouldn't need to use initramfs |
22 |
for udev with a separate /usr. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |