| 1 |
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's |
| 4 |
>> how maintainership works. |
| 5 |
>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is |
| 6 |
>> annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It is solving the problem of *when* (not if - if the words I have read |
| 9 |
> from the systemd maintainers can be taken at face value) the systemd |
| 10 |
> maintainers decide to pull the plug on the ability to have a |
| 11 |
> systemd-less udev... |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Then we will carry a minimal patchset on top of sys-fs/udev that will |
| 15 |
keep it working without systemd for long as it's sustainable. |
| 16 |
And at this point it's pointless to talk of forking yet, it should be |
| 17 |
done only when it's required. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
- Samuli |
Archives