| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 12:51:50 +0800 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 11 July 2012 03:23, Thomas Sachau <tommy@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Michał Górny schrieb: |
| 6 |
> >> Hello, all. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> Since nowadays udev is bundled within systemd, we start having two |
| 9 |
> >> libudev providers: >=sys-apps/systemd-185 and sys-fs/udev. Making |
| 10 |
> >> the long story short, I would like to introduce a virtual for |
| 11 |
> >> libudev which would pull in either of those two. |
| 12 |
> >> [...] |
| 13 |
> >> What are you thoughts? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > As discussed on IRC, there is still no consensus for installing the |
| 16 |
> > udev files with systemd, which is the beginning for the block and |
| 17 |
> > the virtual. So we should first sort that point out, before we even |
| 18 |
> > start to think about an ebuild for an udev virtual. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > So for now: A clear no, i am against adding a virtual/libudev |
| 21 |
> > ebuild. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Me too. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> When upstream moved the udev sources to the systemd repo, they |
| 26 |
> promised that udev would continue to be able to be used separately |
| 27 |
> from systemd. We should hold them to that promise. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> If they break their promise (as it seems they are bent on doing), |
| 30 |
> then we should go ahead with the fork as discussed earlier. I'm sure |
| 31 |
> other distros such as Debian and Slackware would be happy to |
| 32 |
> join us in that effort. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If we fork, then I would expect systemd to actually require its own |
| 35 |
udev which means that systemd would need to build it anyway. What's |
| 36 |
the point? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Best regards, |
| 40 |
Michał Górny |
Archives