| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 11/07/12 06:40 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no |
| 8 |
>> need to build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think this discussion is getting sidetracked. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This didn't start out as a discussion about whether everybody |
| 13 |
> should have to have systemd on their systems - the answer to that |
| 14 |
> is no. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The question is whether we should have a virtual for udev. Right |
| 17 |
> now we're not sure how that is going to be packaged as far as |
| 18 |
> systemd is concerned, so it is premature to make that decision. |
| 19 |
> However, if we do decide to fork udev then that means we'd almost |
| 20 |
> certainly need to have a virtual. At that point we'd have two |
| 21 |
> different udev implementations in the tree - the fork and the one |
| 22 |
> that comes bundled with systemd. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Where things get dicey is if the two udev implementations start to |
| 25 |
> diverge and packages need to behave differently depending on which |
| 26 |
> one is installed - that would become a bit of a mess. Hopefully it |
| 27 |
> won't come to that. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
..although it possibly could come to that, if the fork maintains |
| 32 |
installation in /{bin,sbin,lib} while systemd-udev follows the |
| 33 |
upstream move to /usr/{bin,sbin,lib} |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/9eUkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAFiwD/fAERfjHE0kHItPuBnCqH+669 |
| 40 |
flblkcc4/rMkAOQk8GUA/3MKU1j374JmcF9omXDFDJcq4SEJszKNL3tJGjgs0i0v |
| 41 |
=dahJ |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives