Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev (viable) alternatives ?

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:48:49PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote
>
>> I wouldn't worry about it at all, there is no way *sys-fs/udev ebuild*
>> will ever need systemd. There might be a news item later, with
>> instructions on moving to something else, but that's not something we
>> are even planning at the moment, so sys-fs/udev is still the de facto
>> proper upstream /dev manager.
>
>   What worries me is that Lennart has been able to get modifications
> done to the kernel, e.g. kdbus.  I know this'll sound paranoid, but how
> long before he pushes a patch that requires systemd to run the linux
> kernel?

Apologies if this comes across a bit agro, but:

1.  kdbus isn't in the kernel (though that seems likely to happen at some point)
2.  it does sound paranoid
3.  if he pushes a patch that requires systemd I'd be shocked if Linus merged it

Can you find one example of any situation where the linux kernel has
ever required any specific implementation of anything in userspace as
a matter of policy in its 23 year history?  I'm sure you could find
some examples of cases where there just happened to be one de-facto
implementation of something, but even that might be tough with all the
diversity in the linux world.

Linus himself has articulated some of the reasons why kdbus is likely
to get merged.  It fills in a gap in Linux as compared to many
competing operating systems, and it is logical to implement at the
kernel level.  That is generally the criteria for getting stuff into
the kernel, and is basically good software design.  The linux kernel
is all about stable userspace ABIs - if there is only one
implementation of something it is probably because nobody was bothered
enough to write another.

--
Rich