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 1SURXt-00013I-7h for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 23:52:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A3223E0961; Tue, 15 May 2012 23:52:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport-out.teksavvy.com (ironport-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.143.162]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51EF4E0943 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 23:51:53 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApUIACxOgk/O+K7C/2dsb2JhbABDuCMDgQyBCIIJAQEFOhwzCxgcEhQlN4gOC7Yni2GBVYJBYwSNb4d8gRKEcIhYgV2DAw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,391,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="180448833" Received: from 206-248-174-194.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([206.248.174.194]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 15 May 2012 19:51:51 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 15 May 2012 19:51:03 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:51:03 -0400 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stability of /sys api Message-ID: <20120515235103.GA2254@waltdnes.org> References: <20120514075353.GB5819@waltdnes.org> <20120515012336.GB18105@kroah.com> <20120515055523.GB15805@waltdnes.org> <20120515182603.GC563@kroah.com> <20120515223805.GA1997@waltdnes.org> <1337121899.2757.1.camel@cathai> 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: <1337121899.2757.1.camel@cathai> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 60a0b191-1a2d-4481-bdba-26186d8a20b4 X-Archives-Hash: b5f4ba19e21efc248ab63666e29d12dd On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 12:44:59AM +0200, Stelian Ionescu wrote > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 18:38 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:26:03AM -0700, Greg KH wrote > > > What specifically is your objection to udev today? Is it doing things > > > you don't like? Too big? Something else? > > > > Today, it requires an initramfs if /usr is not physically on /. That > > is due in large part to the fact that it has been rolled into the > > systemd tarball, and inherited some of systemd's code and limitations, > > despite the fact that udev is still a separate binary. > > This is absolutely and definitely false. Where did you hear such > nonsense ? 1) Did you sleep through the /usr and initramfs flamewars? http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken 2) The udev sources have merged into the systemd tarball. See... http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/17392 And note the date is April 3rd, not April 1st. If they were really as worried about compatability as they claim, you wouldn't need to use initramfs for udev with a separate /usr. -- Walter Dnes