On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:46:23 +0100 Peter Stuge wrote: >Lars Wendler wrote: >> >> - try to prevent most naming pollution of pure udev with systemd >> >> crap. >> > >> >childish. me don't like pink ponies. pink too much. pony okay. >> >> Riiight... as udev has anything else to do with systemd other than >> being uselessly integrated into systemd whereas it can still work on >> its own with no whatsoever relation to systemd. But yes, totally >> childish... > >I wouldn't say childish but it doesn't seem too useful to me. It >seems clear (at least to me) that even if there isn't so tight >integration of udev with systemd today it's reasonable to expect >that there will be tight integration in the soonish future, as >upstream continues to move in the direction they like. > >There's nothing wrong per se with a future udev ebuild which >applies a mega-patch onto systemd sources in order to get udevd >standalone but I think that's probably not the most useful >contribution you can make to Gentoo, Lars. > >Of course in the end you should work on what you like, but in your >place I would probably focus on something else, probably eudev. > > >//Peter
As long as it's feasible I will continue patching the systemd crap out of udev. The worst part always was and still is the man pages as one cannot re-use previous patches on them. Whatever systemd maniacs are doing there, it's the most time consuming part of the patching. The fun part is, it's still quite easy to get udev standalone without anything being related to systemd (with the exception of the systemd unit files which still can be used with my ebuilds). -- Lars Wendler Gentoo package maintainer GPG: 4DD8 C47C CDFA 5295 E1A6 3FC8 F696 74AB 981C A6FC
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
