On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:48:49PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote > >> I wouldn't worry about it at all, there is no way *sys-fs/udev ebuild* >> will ever need systemd. There might be a news item later, with >> instructions on moving to something else, but that's not something we >> are even planning at the moment, so sys-fs/udev is still the de facto >> proper upstream /dev manager. > > What worries me is that Lennart has been able to get modifications > done to the kernel, e.g. kdbus. I know this'll sound paranoid, but how > long before he pushes a patch that requires systemd to run the linux > kernel?
Apologies if this comes across a bit agro, but: 1. kdbus isn't in the kernel (though that seems likely to happen at some point) 2. it does sound paranoid 3. if he pushes a patch that requires systemd I'd be shocked if Linus merged it Can you find one example of any situation where the linux kernel has ever required any specific implementation of anything in userspace as a matter of policy in its 23 year history? I'm sure you could find some examples of cases where there just happened to be one de-facto implementation of something, but even that might be tough with all the diversity in the linux world. Linus himself has articulated some of the reasons why kdbus is likely to get merged. It fills in a gap in Linux as compared to many competing operating systems, and it is logical to implement at the kernel level. That is generally the criteria for getting stuff into the kernel, and is basically good software design. The linux kernel is all about stable userspace ABIs - if there is only one implementation of something it is probably because nobody was bothered enough to write another. -- Rich
