| 1 |
On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/27/2013 10:25 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Ok... |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> So, what is this all about? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Does all of this mean that udev is now going *completely* away, |
| 8 |
>> *totally* replaced by systemd? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> If so, has there been any kind of formal announcement about this |
| 11 |
>> *anywhere*?? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Hold your horses. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The devs will work something out; systemd is not replacing the udev |
| 16 |
> package for all users. For the moment, it's just replacing the udev |
| 17 |
> package for users using systemd. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The problem at the moment is a spat between the systemd maintainer and |
| 20 |
> the udev maintainer. They don't see eye to eye about which packages |
| 21 |
> should be providing which files (and where), and there's also a serious |
| 22 |
> miscommunication (and misinterpretation of historical communication) |
| 23 |
> issue between the two of them at the moment. They're trying to get it |
| 24 |
> worked out (via attempting cooperation or via arbitration, whatever is |
| 25 |
> necessary), and things will settle down. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> In the mean time, if I read the context right, this issue should only |
| 28 |
> affect people who are using systemd. This shouldn't be affecting people |
| 29 |
> who aren't using systemd. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
(incidentally, to anyone who's following the issue, please correct me if |
| 32 |
I'm wrong...) |
Archives