From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552AD1381DF for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 222FC21C026; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 333B0E0835 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:12:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dra13-4-78-234-166-189.fbx.proxad.net [78.234.166.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8985340B03 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:12:40 +0100 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing order of default virtual/udev provider Message-ID: <20160216191240.5359430f@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20160216174541.GA1450@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> References: <20160214114131.62b2deb8.dolsen@gentoo.org> <20160214202326.GE7732@vapier.lan> <20160214203454.GF7732@vapier.lan> <56C0E7E8.9090901@gentoo.org> <20160214205038.GI7732@vapier.lan> <56c12b45.aa22b60a.9e156.4fd5@mx.google.com> <20160215102900.1693a1de@gentoo.org> <20160216174541.GA1450@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.29; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0667297e-286b-401f-b585-826374d63b1b X-Archives-Hash: 8f3ee0cf28d3f19fed7187c2aecbe101 On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:45:41 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > > > William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can > > >> still be extracted and run standalone from systemd. > > > > > > and even with that, I don't think there is anything preventing > > > using systemd-udev from an openrc boot, is it ? (ie, have systemd > > > installed but booting with openrc) > > > > > > > Correct, you can uninstall sys-fs/(e)udev and install > > sys-apps/systemd, then boot with openrc, and udev will work just > > fine. > > This is correct. udev does not require systemd in order to run; the > only thing it needs is the systemd build environment since there is > common source code. > > The primary reason we have sys-fs/udev in the tree these days is so > people can have upstream udev without installing systemd. > > In theory, we could lastrites sys-fs/udev and make sys-apps/systemd > the default udev provider, but I'm sure that change would be even > more controversial than what we are discussing. ;-) It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at some point". Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining sys-fs/udev standalone and don't intend to drop it. Even if you did, we could still pkgmove it to systemd. My conclusion is that this claim of udev being a dead end is pure FUD. Alexis.