| 1 |
On 10/11/14 13:04, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/26/2014 1:04 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 25/09/14 22:03, James wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I'd be better of with a fresh install of lilblue + musl + eudev |
| 5 |
>>> is what you are really saying here? |
| 6 |
>> that's the only usecase for eudev currently, yes, otherwise you have no |
| 7 |
>> reason to switch |
| 8 |
> Hi Samuli, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So, is the above still true? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yes, it's still true, there is no reason to change away from sys-fs/udev |
| 13 |
except for sys-libs/musl use, |
| 14 |
and even then, I'd be happy to accept musl compability patches for |
| 15 |
sys-fs/udev's ebuild, but the |
| 16 |
sys-libs/musl maintainer decided to put his work to sys-fs/eudev |
| 17 |
instead. So unless some user |
| 18 |
does the work for him... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I wouldn't worry about it at all, there is no way *sys-fs/udev ebuild* |
| 21 |
will ever need systemd. There |
| 22 |
might be a news item later, with instructions on moving to something |
| 23 |
else, but that's not something |
| 24 |
we are even planning at the moment, so sys-fs/udev is still the de facto |
| 25 |
proper upstream /dev |
| 26 |
manager. |
Archives