| 1 |
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> eudev is looking more attractive every day... but can it continue to |
| 4 |
> work and be supported if Lennart gets his way and upstream udev stops |
| 5 |
> working without systemd? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, there are no plans to make udev stop working without systemd as |
| 9 |
far as I can tell. HOWEVER, there ARE plans to require using kdbus to |
| 10 |
communicate with udev, and for that to work there needs to be a |
| 11 |
userspace initialization of kdbus/etc. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Udev is probably just be the tip of the iceberg. Lots of packages use |
| 14 |
dbus, and it seems likely to me that many will start switching to |
| 15 |
kdbus. The fact that it is going to be a standard kernel IPC |
| 16 |
mechanism also means that packages that have avoided dbus in the |
| 17 |
interests of not having large dependencies may start picking it up as |
| 18 |
well - it might be used even on embedded systems. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I have no idea how much work is involved or if anybody else is |
| 21 |
interested in doing it. If busybox is willing to have their mdev |
| 22 |
module, I don't see why they wouldn't want a kdbus module to go along |
| 23 |
with that. However, that is speaking mostly out of ignorance, and |
| 24 |
somebody needs to write the code. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't think avoiding kdbus is going to be a viable long-term |
| 27 |
solution. Folks who don't want to run systemd need to start planning |
| 28 |
for this, and cross "needs dbus" off their list of reasons not to use |
| 29 |
systemd. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives