| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Well, if we're going to force it to be in the stage3, I guess this |
| 4 |
> boils down to whether eudev or udev is the better nano. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
"Nicht alles was hinkt ist ein Vergleich", as we say in German. |
| 7 |
Emacs has a flexible extension language, whereas nano uses a |
| 8 |
configuration file. Not sure in which direction this would map to |
| 9 |
OpenRC and systemd. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> I think it makes far more sense to just remove some of the controversy |
| 12 |
> by taking it out of the system set first. Then I doubt anybody would |
| 13 |
> notice the switch. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Take what out of the system set? virtual/udev isn't there, in the |
| 16 |
first place, and virtual/dev-manager is needed for a working system. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ulrich |
Archives