Hey Lennart, Kay and all, On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 06:58:39PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Well, we intent to continue to make it possible to run udevd outside of > systemd. But that's about it. We will not polish that, or add new > features to that or anything. > > OTOH we do polish behaviour of udev when used *within* systemd however, > and that's our primary focus. > > And what we will certainly not do is compromise the uniform integration > into systemd for some cosmetic improvements for non-systemd systems. > > (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case you > haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we can drop > that support entirely.) There are a number of reasons from what I see on my distro's development list and from what I've seen insome patches proposed here, that everyone isn't comfortable with systemd. I thought the merge was more for administrative reasons, because there is common source code between systemd and udev that you did not want to provide as libraries. Now though, with the attitude toward non-systemd systems that I see above, I am starting to wonder. You have taken a piece of software which is important to many linux systems (udev) and merged it into an init system (systemd) which is not used everywhere for a number of reasons. Now you are planning to kill udev for systems that do not use systemd. Why is that? Why are you saying that udev on non-systemd systems is a dead end? Is there some alternative for non-systemd systems? William
Attachment:
pgphfRSBxCqgP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
