| 1 |
Am 27.03.2013 15:34, schrieb Michael Mol: |
| 2 |
> On 03/27/2013 10:33 AM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/27/2013 10:25 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Ok... |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> So, what is this all about? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> Does all of this mean that udev is now going *completely* |
| 9 |
>>> away, *totally* replaced by systemd? |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> If so, has there been any kind of formal announcement about |
| 12 |
>>> this *anywhere*?? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Hold your horses. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> The devs will work something out; systemd is not replacing the |
| 17 |
>> udev package for all users. For the moment, it's just replacing |
| 18 |
>> the udev package for users using systemd. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> The problem at the moment is a spat between the systemd |
| 21 |
>> maintainer and the udev maintainer. They don't see eye to eye |
| 22 |
>> about which packages should be providing which files (and where), |
| 23 |
>> and there's also a serious miscommunication (and |
| 24 |
>> misinterpretation of historical communication) issue between the |
| 25 |
>> two of them at the moment. They're trying to get it worked out |
| 26 |
>> (via attempting cooperation or via arbitration, whatever is |
| 27 |
>> necessary), and things will settle down. |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> In the mean time, if I read the context right, this issue should |
| 30 |
>> only affect people who are using systemd. This shouldn't be |
| 31 |
>> affecting people who aren't using systemd. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> (incidentally, to anyone who's following the issue, please correct |
| 34 |
> me if I'm wrong...) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I understand the situation as you do ... |
Archives