| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 10:03:58AM +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> FUD again. The backwards compability is still all there and udev can be |
| 4 |
> built standalone and ran standalone. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
For how long can it be built standalone? The following "FUD" brought |
| 7 |
to you courtesy of Kay Sievers... http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never |
| 10 |
> told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation |
| 13 |
> always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the |
| 16 |
> announcement, it just wasn't written there. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's not some paranoid conspiracy theorist, that's the systemd |
| 19 |
developer speaking. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> And on the contrary, there was no need for sys-fs/eudev to remove |
| 22 |
> support for sys-fs/systemd when it could have supported both |
| 23 |
> sys-apps/systemd and sys-apps/openrc like sys-fs/udev does without |
| 24 |
> issues. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What do you mean by eudev supporting systemd? udev is an integrated |
| 27 |
part of the systemd tarball (that can operate standalone... for now). |
| 28 |
eudev isn't. I'm old enough to remember IBM's OS/2 attempting to |
| 29 |
support Windows 3.1 and how that got broken by minor binary changes in |
| 30 |
Windows 3.11. eudev would be in a similar situation, attempting to |
| 31 |
support a hostile systemd "side-stream". |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I think that the best way to end these arguments is a peaceful divorce |
| 34 |
with systemd and eudev each going their own way. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 38 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives