| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:42:04PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11 July 2012 02:30, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > All, |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > the last thread started by mgorny has prompted me to ask here on the |
| 6 |
> > list which versions of udev we really need in the tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Personally, I'm holding on to 171. I have masked >=181 because of |
| 9 |
> bad decisions upstream and I want to see how the situation will |
| 10 |
> stabilize. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Since 171 is the latest stable, I would think most of our users are |
| 13 |
> on this version anyway. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Since upstream seems to be unwilling to work with us, I think |
| 16 |
> we should seriously consider doing a fork. I know there are |
| 17 |
> other distros like Debian and Slackware who would be happy |
| 18 |
> to join us in that effort. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm not interested in a fork at this time. I think we can continue |
| 21 |
making udev work for us as is, and the way upstream is doing things |
| 22 |
isn't affecting binary package based distros, so we would basically be |
| 23 |
on our own. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The deal is that upstream supports *running* udev separately, but not |
| 26 |
*building* it separately [1]. Their approach works wonderfully if you |
| 27 |
are a binary package based distro, so I'm not sure Debian, |
| 28 |
Slackware, etc would really have any incentive to join a fork at this |
| 29 |
point. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
William |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds |
Archives