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 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SouMj-000766-Er for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:41:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59F67E0653; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D496E030B for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so800282bkw.40 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:40:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=6U5YyA5oui7VsEPkE8hE6p8nNBoPh/avO0HxAcPK0xk=; b=srsVUz2FKvF6cXeucIbDL6Ge74VLNDv0iSPjzRvkRKVFwDePhC91QghfXzBOvYSSVw BwHvjaB5x2zkxMw8+mjX+O8vBfC9Wl+21mlspBHWR9OwWD+adMFusd7PuTzrZ8QxNkds f131hgjAIxZLpQzkYZDwIhpd486Ndonr69dafc/YwivpHNZifvaO9NVFVz8+rVsT/3oP U/XI3XG2aO4LqU2+uqBynZjlHbacM8WB26TQl7PCAyv/39G51Y8oFfayM9DbuYWey0eb EWYjzMr9PS9LG1O8TymPXwgdn+G9u7/qDgPibMNcsA9YT+qCETVWmSI6e6jysr9yQCnz E+dQ== 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 Received: by 10.205.119.208 with SMTP id fv16mr9197318bkc.100.1342003225394; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.4.71 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 03:40:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120710171800.493a7c4c@pomiocik.lan> <4FFC813B.7090501@gentoo.org> <20120711091510.52b44e08@pomiocik.lan> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:40:25 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Yny2QDvDAk0b4jGs616nxg64nzI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: virtual/libudev From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 66075c90-87b0-48e6-a8fe-1704b4ce329d X-Archives-Hash: 94abb603298850cd9d58db913869cd86 On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote: > Being able to choose not to run systemd at all? If there's no need to > build systemd, than what it requires is irrelevant. I think this discussion is getting sidetracked. This didn't start out as a discussion about whether everybody should have to have systemd on their systems - the answer to that is no. The question is whether we should have a virtual for udev. Right now we're not sure how that is going to be packaged as far as systemd is concerned, so it is premature to make that decision. However, if we do decide to fork udev then that means we'd almost certainly need to have a virtual. At that point we'd have two different udev implementations in the tree - the fork and the one that comes bundled with systemd. Where things get dicey is if the two udev implementations start to diverge and packages need to behave differently depending on which one is installed - that would become a bit of a mess. Hopefully it won't come to that. Rich