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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-51717-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1SUs5J-0006g6-Ra
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:13:06 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45A29E0A6C;
Thu, 17 May 2012 04:12:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED89E09FC
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:12:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C682C1B4044
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:12:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5
tests=[AWL=-0.808, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.164,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
autolearn=no
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id uIjW0F21-MGM for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Thu, 17 May 2012 04:12:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D24C91B401F
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2012 04:12:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-dev@m.gmane.org>)
id 1SUs4B-0004H1-Dt
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 17 May 2012 06:11:55 +0200
Received: from 109.176.199.108 ([109.176.199.108])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2012 06:11:55 +0200
Received: from slong by 109.176.199.108 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Thu, 17 May 2012 06:11:55 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: Steven J Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tightly-coupled core distro [was: Council meeting summary for 3 April 2012]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 05:16:54 +0100
Organization: Friendly-Coders
Message-ID: <jp1tq1$cus$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <4F8503DF.1010802@gentoo.org> <jm43b9$a0e$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F85E21C.4060106@gentoo.org> <jmvr06$96o$1@dough.gmane.org> <CAGfcS_nPz=6kGg49kwZ-6GGAeB0fixzUQxyyXbU8-bbO0ndKng@mail.gmail.com> <jn04lk$q2i$1@dough.gmane.org> <20120423012540.GA2130@waltdnes.org> <jo0q2n$ebp$1@dough.gmane.org> <20120505010529.GD22763@kroah.com> <jo9t9m$aql$1@dough.gmane.org> <20120509183203.GA27545@kroah.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.176.199.108
X-Archives-Salt: 75dc5d9e-3e6f-4b9a-9ee9-f2cc3d30e417
X-Archives-Hash: aef642c641b4a18242c0e2bab058c807
Greg KH wrote:
> Steven J Long wrote:
>> And that is what we were discussing: possible future coupling between the
>> two, which is much easier to do when the sources are part of the
>> same package.
..
>> OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a
>> design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close
>> integration with the underlying udev implementation.
>
> Nope, can't make that assurance at all.
>
> Actually, maybe I can make the opposite assurance
Well, thanks for being straightforward about it: clearly you're keeping the
option of udev requiring systemd open, and in fact want to move toward that.
> , let's see what the future brings... :)
>
Yeah, we'll see :) You have udev working nicely, fulfilling a whole load of
use-cases, and now you want to upwardly-couple to er, a service-manager.
Running as pid 1, no less, even though it's not necessary. (I predict that
latter decision will get reversed in a while, just like a /usr partition
went from an anachronism to a grand new design, and xml config formats are
no longer talked about; thankfully binary logs got slammed back out the door
in-kernel at least[1].)
Not build another thing utilising udev and dbus, not even one closely
integrated, but upwardly-couple every Linux system to that new userspace
project. Good luck with that.
steveL.
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/
--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)