From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SM83Y-0003Ek-95 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:27:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 503B3E0B74; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport-out.teksavvy.com (ironport-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.143.162]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0DCE0AE4 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:26:03 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowNACxOgk9soXxf/2dsb2JhbABDt0BjA4EMgQiCCQEBAQECAQEBATccGBALCzQHCxQTARE3iAkFC7Yni2GBVYJBYwSNb4VRgiuBEoRwiFiBXYMD X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,391,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="176167939" Received: from 108-161-124-95.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([108.161.124.95]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2012 21:26:01 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:25:40 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:25:40 -0400 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012 Message-ID: <20120423012540.GA2130@waltdnes.org> References: <4F833687.4040004@gentoo.org> <4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org> <4F85E21C.4060106@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 06c50ef7-7a97-4140-aace-1928d11c35b6 X-Archives-Hash: bbcb2c69ba0ac3866bdfcbb1d25e2d9f On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 06:28:08AM +0100, Steven J Long wrote > who's going to either "port" udev as necessary, or maintain an > old version forever? > I will keep an old version going until the end of time. > dberkholz: My plan is to patch reasonable behaviour back into > udev, and going with the upstream releases as long as it is feasible. I use busybox's mdev, and it works fine for my simple system. See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev The busybox web site is http://busybox.net/ and the maintenance is handled by them. The mailing list info is at http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox > To confirm again, that this is about without initramfs: > sure i can. maintain old udev-XXX forever, put an elog in new > udev that says "if you want separate /usr without initramfs, install old > udev, mask new, or whatever" systemd and udev are being merged into one tarball. For the "foreseeable future", it will still build 2 separate binaries. What happens down the road if/when it all becomes one combined binary? > And again, I ask: if it were *not* about running udev without an > initramfs, then why would anyone even be discussing the possibility > of patching or forking? Forking/patching udev would be a major undertaking. Maybe we'd be better off making add-ons for mdev to provide missing udev functionality. Note that busybox is intended for embedded systems, and they're not going to add major additional functionality to the base code. That's why I suggest optional add-ons for any additional functionality. BTW, how would a non-programmer (at least not C programmer) like me forward these ideas to the Gentoo Council? -- Walter Dnes