| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Steven J Long |
| 2 |
<slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> That might be true for some Linux-only packages, but I really find it hard |
| 4 |
> to believe that any upstream targetting more than one OS (just adding a BSD |
| 5 |
> is enough) with software that could be considered critical (I for one would |
| 6 |
> include all POSIX utilities as well as basic stuff like mount, fsck and |
| 7 |
> lvm2) would want to ignore this kind of thing; if the build-system is |
| 8 |
> ignoring configuration, it's a bug. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The issue is that if udev requires libfoo, then libfoo must not be in |
| 11 |
/usr. If libfoo is libx11 or dbus or some other complex library, that |
| 12 |
will pull in a bunch of other stuff as well. However, I doubt that |
| 13 |
the maintainers of all those libraries would consider them |
| 14 |
boot-essential, so they may not be inclined to make the move. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Obviously we're not there now, but it is a possible consequence of |
| 17 |
moving in this direction. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Keep in mind that systemd in particular does not aim to be |
| 20 |
cross-platform - they advertise this as one of their core features. |
| 21 |
Since tight integration is their goal that could slowly bring in a lot |
| 22 |
of other stuff. The main platform pushing it along is Fedora, and |
| 23 |
they're aiming to move everything into /usr, so this is a non-issue |
| 24 |
for them. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I read the decision from the Council to be "we will continue to support the |
| 27 |
> traditional split /usr eg with lvm, and no initramfs" and a Council member |
| 28 |
> put himself forward to maintain patches to udev to ensure that going |
| 29 |
> forward, since it is needed in his employment. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Given that we can do it with initscripts, and don't need to fork udev at |
| 32 |
> all, what's the problem? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I can't really comment on what the decision from the Council actually |
| 35 |
was. However, maintaining patches to udev is effectively the same |
| 36 |
thing as forking it. Right now it probably isn't hard, and over time |
| 37 |
that could change. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
The only time patches != fork is if the patches have been submitted |
| 40 |
upstream and are likely to be merged. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
In any case, it isn't a crisis now and waiting a little to see which |
| 43 |
way the wind ends up blowing probably makes sense. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Rich |
Archives