| 1 |
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 |
| 3 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> |
| 6 |
>> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change |
| 8 |
>> > the virtual back. One-line change. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the |
| 11 |
>> default to eudev in the first place. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> OH, my, this is looking more like you are being paid by systemd peeps... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Nobody has ever paid me to do anything involving open-source software, |
| 17 |
systemd or otherwise. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
My point is just that there is no need to change today, because: |
| 20 |
1. udev works just fine today |
| 21 |
2. If udev doesn't work just fine in the future, we can just change |
| 22 |
the virtual. One-line change. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's all. I'm not saying that there might not be other reasons to |
| 25 |
change the virtual. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm just saying that the possibility that udev might break in the |
| 28 |
future isn't any more a reason to change the virtual than the |
| 29 |
possibility that eudev might be abandoned in the future. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I love it when Patrick violently agrees with me. :) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives