| 1 |
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 |
| 2 |
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 03:50:38PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 14 Feb 2016 15:47, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On 2/14/16 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > the bring up of the daemon itself is not nearly as important as |
| 8 |
> > > > the runtime interaction of people using libudev or rules being |
| 9 |
> > > > executed. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > correct and i've been careful with libudev. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > anyhow, can we divert this away from udev/eudev. mike what do you |
| 14 |
> > > recommend as the future of openrc once systemd-udev can no longer |
| 15 |
> > > be extracted. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > if/when systemd-udev can't be extract anymore, then sys-fs/udev is |
| 18 |
> > dead, and this whole thread is fairly moot. |
| 19 |
> > -mike |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> +1. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can still be |
| 24 |
> extracted and run standalone from systemd. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
and even with that, I don't think there is anything preventing using |
| 27 |
systemd-udev from an openrc boot, is it ? (ie, have systemd installed |
| 28 |
but booting with openrc) |
Archives