-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 11/07/12 06:40 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 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.
>
..although it possibly could come to that, if the fork maintains
installation in /{bin,sbin,lib} while systemd-udev follows the
upstream move to /usr/{bin,sbin,lib}
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/9eUkACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAFiwD/fAERfjHE0kHItPuBnCqH+669
flblkcc4/rMkAOQk8GUA/3MKU1j374JmcF9omXDFDJcq4SEJszKNL3tJGjgs0i0v
=dahJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
