On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Lars Wendler <polynomia...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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). >
Don't oversell this; your changes are purely cosmetic and really amount to renaming a few files. udev still includes code from several systemd helper libraries; it just gets linked in statically.
