| 1 |
Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> LOL |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Now seriously: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> You should follow the discussion in -project. Someone (I forgot who |
| 9 |
> exactly) has made a personal commitment to within a month produce a |
| 10 |
> serviceable udev fork, at least a Proof of Concept. And IIRC, hwoarang |
| 11 |
> is going to 'test the waters' with Debian people. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So, this is not a pipe dream. It's happening, code will be produced, |
| 14 |
> ... and I bet some people will get offended ;-) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Rgds, |
| 17 |
> -- |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'm sure some will be offended but it's no different when we heard about |
| 21 |
the change that was coming. A lot of us were not happy then either. |
| 22 |
Thing is, we now have two paths. One that keeps the FHS like it was |
| 23 |
with a separate /usr if we like and one where you have to have /usr on / |
| 24 |
or use a initramfs thingy. Now both can be happy while this idea gets |
| 25 |
tested. If the way udev is going flops, then they will come back. If |
| 26 |
udev works out for a lot of people, we will have two ways to do things. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think at some point, the new way will hit a road block and things will |
| 29 |
break, maybe not for binary distros but for others. When that time |
| 30 |
comes, they will have to try to figure out a way to get things back to |
| 31 |
the way they were. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Time will tell tho. I'm just glad to see the project getting started. |
| 34 |
Test both ways and see which one works out best. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Dale |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
:-) :-) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives