On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:19:48PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: > On 07/17/2012 07:02 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > This is basically not relevant since we do not support HURD. > > It is relevant because it guarantees that the GNU stuff in @system will > continue working. That allows us to narrow our focus to the non-GNU > things required to use Gentoo Linux. > > Looking at @system and what it typically pulls into @world, the only > thing that might cause a problem is udev, although virtual/dev-manager > is in @system, rather than udev. If that happens, we have a few ways of > dealing with that: > > 1. Patch udev.
I think I can come up with a patch locally that will read rules from /lib/udev/rules.d if that's what we want to do for now. > 2. Fork udev. I don't think this is necessary, and it would create more work for us than is needed. > >> Lastly, don't tell me to read systemd's case for why we should break > >> people's systems. I have read it and I find it flawed. There is > >> absolutely no need for us to make this change. > > > > Without elaboration on why you find their case flawed, this sounds > > like the typical, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" argument. > > While that has merrit, if there are advantages to doing > > something, like I think there would be to doing the /usr merge, it may > > be worth the transition, especially if we can make it as smooth as > > possible. > > The cost to benefit ratio is simply too low for "lets change it because > it could be better this way" to merit making the change. The things that > I have heard are going to break existing systems that I have gone > through some trouble to support. I really don't want to see that. You are still not saying what things you have heard. Your concerns can't be addressed if you don't tell us what they are. William
pgpM4wdMCDc6P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
