On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no need to > build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant.
I think this discussion is getting sidetracked. This didn't start out as a discussion about whether everybody should have to have systemd on their systems - the answer to that is no. The question is whether we should have a virtual for udev. Right now we're not sure how that is going to be packaged as far as systemd is concerned, so it is premature to make that decision. However, if we do decide to fork udev then that means we'd almost certainly need to have a virtual. At that point we'd have two different udev implementations in the tree - the fork and the one that comes bundled with systemd. Where things get dicey is if the two udev implementations start to diverge and packages need to behave differently depending on which one is installed - that would become a bit of a mess. Hopefully it won't come to that. Rich
