| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's |
| 7 |
>>> how maintainership works. |
| 8 |
>>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is |
| 9 |
>>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read |
| 13 |
>> from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd |
| 14 |
>> maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a |
| 15 |
>> systemd-less udev... |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Then we will carry a minimal patchset on top of sys-fs/udev that will keep |
| 19 |
> it working without systemd for long as it's sustainable. |
| 20 |
> And at this point it's pointless to talk of forking yet, it should be done |
| 21 |
> only when it's required. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It is done ahead so it won't be too late, as you say... eudev is |
| 24 |
"minimal patch set" over systemd. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Someone should have forked the logind as well ahead, so the whole |
| 27 |
gmone discussion was irrelevant. |
Archives