Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: yngwin@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:16:11
Message-Id: 20120711091510.52b44e08@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: virtual/libudev by Ben de Groot
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>