| 1 |
On Mar 14, 2012 10:20 PM, "Alan Mackenzie" <acm@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
---- >8 snippage |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Walter is, I believe, mistaken here. I can mount and use my LVM2 |
| 8 |
> partitions. Gnome looks like it comes up OK, but that could be moot, |
| 9 |
> since right now I haven't got keyboard/mouse drivers under the X server. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
This post here: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076662.html |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
seems to indicate that Xorg communicates with udev (something mdev can't |
| 17 |
do, because that would increase the complexity of mdev by several orders of |
| 18 |
magnitude). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
BUT, in the same message, it is stated that Xorg *can* be compiled to *not* |
| 21 |
try to communicate with udev. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I suspect a similar situation with Gnome. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > I will not be surprised if in the future the list of programs "not for |
| 26 |
> > mdev" only grows. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> There's a difference between "needed by portage" and "doesn't work under |
| 29 |
> mdev". As I say, it will all be moot if the evdev driver won't work |
| 30 |
> under mdev. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Do packages *actually* need udev's (over)features (read: bloat), or is it |
| 34 |
just the maintainers depend-ing on sys-fs/udev instead of |
| 35 |
virtual/device-manager ? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
For lots of packages claiming they depend on udev, I suspect it's the |
| 38 |
latter situation. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Rgds, |
Archives