It's like "recursive make" was widely used for some reason... Kevin
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Armin K. <kre...@email.com> wrote: > For those of you not following systemd-devel mailing list, here are some > responses from Lennart regarding systemd and udev split. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] [PATCH 1/5] build-sys: move common > libraries to separate Makefile > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:31:30 +0200 > From: Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> > Organization: Red Hat, Inc. > To: William Hubbs <w.d.hu...@gmail.com> > CC: systemd-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > > On Tue, 12.06.12 12:52, William Hubbs (w.d.hu...@gmail.com) wrote: > > heya, > > Sorry, not going to merge this. This patch is ugly, and I doubt you can > fix it to make it less ugly. Split makefiles suck [1], and so do makefiles > with even more ifdefs than we already have. Besides that it would > probably be the first package where you can disable building the main > component. > > Feel free to maintain such a patch downstream, git makes that easy. But > I don't want to maintain that upstream. It makes my life harder, I'd > break it all the time without noticing and so it has no place upstream. > > The first rule for all maintainers is only to merge stuff they > themselves are willing to maintain. This is true for fringe patches, but > even more on core stuff like build system changes that are essential for > the whole package. > > My recommendation for distros who want udev without the rest of systemd > is to build systemd normally and just pick the files you are interested > in from "make install". (And besides that, I am pretty sure you probably > want to pick at least tmpfiles in addition to udev from the build tree). > > Sorry, > > Lennart > > Footnotes: > > [1] I mean, seriously, we made the clear decision to have only a single > makefile and avoid recursive make and now with splitting this stuff up > you undo that half-way. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] setting up to allow separate udev and > systemd builds > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:21:58 +0200 > From: Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> > Organization: Red Hat, Inc. > To: Bryan Kadzban <br...@kadzban.is-a-geek.net> > CC: systemd-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > > On Fri, 15.06.12 20:06, Bryan Kadzban (br...@kadzban.is-a-geek.net) wrote: > > > dbus > > libcap > > I am quite happy with depending on these two as it makes little sense to > build an OS without it, unless you go super minimal in which case > sysemd/udev are not relevant. > > > m4 > > intltool > > gperf (--enable-keymap will require gperf for a udev build as well) > > These are only build-time deps, and hence are totally OK to have. > > I mean, the next thing you come up with is a patch to not require > automake and use only make, just because you have a problem with > dependencies? I mean, seriously. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > According to theese two replies, they aint going to make the build-sys > to be able to build only udev. > > http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev > > Looking at this page, mdev can work really well in LFS/BLFS environment. > I suggest you replace udev with mdev in LFS, thus keeping LFS minimal > enough, and put udev+systemd in BLFS if necesary. > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page -- Kevin Lyda Dublin, Ireland US Citizen overseas? We can vote. Register now: http://www.votefromabroad.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
