On 11/10/2014 2:01 AM, Matthias Urlichs <matth...@urlichs.de> wrote: > Sorry, but requiring an up-to-date kernel (or any other infrastructure you > rely on) instead of maintaining workarounds and compatibility code in > perpetuity makes perfect sense.
It amazes me the depths that some systemd proponents obfuscate and ignore. Did you miss the part about 'no more udev without systemd'? Lennart said: > Also note that at that point we intend to move udev onto kdbus as > transport, and get rid of the userspace-to-userspace netlink-based > tranport udev used so far. Unless the systemd-haters prepare another > kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will > not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that > point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call. One thing that 'anti-systemd whiners' (many systemd proponents like to lump those of us who have legitimate, serious design and implementation questions about systemd in with those who just spew FUD about 'binary logs, ignoring that you don't have to enable or use them) - have been questioning was whether or not udev would always work without systemd, and the systemd proponents - while calling us 'whiners' - would always say 'of course it will you silly whiner, we only moved the code into the systemd repo for convenience, why don't you eat some systemd cake and be happy'... Well, now we see that, as suspected, that is simply not true, and now, motives and intentions of the systemd drivers (maybe not so much the fanbois) are more suspect than ever. Off to post this reference to the gentoo list. I'd love to see some collaboration between Debian devs that aren't happy about the state of affairs) and the eudev guy(s?) at gentoo, to get eudev into the main Debian repo to head this off at the pass. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/546096d7.2010...@libertytrek.org
