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 1S7Ykz-0002tX-7M for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:55:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0C50E0A03; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0C5E099D for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:54:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oxusltgw09.schlund.de (oxusltgw09.lxa.perfora.net [172.19.206.11]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus0) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MF5yV-1S8tWt1tMJ-00GCyq; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:54:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:54:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bruce Hill, Jr." To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <1652548889.629847.1331672072496.JavaMail.open-xchange@email.1and1.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20111115062115.GA3262@waltdnes.org> <20111121104724.GC7461@waltdnes.org> <20111201194544.GD4455@waltdnes.org> <20120217234045.GA25390@waltdnes.org> <20120311090912.GA23850@waltdnes.org> <20120312092432.GA2959@acm.acm> <20120313073306.GC23544@waltdnes.org> <20120313130534.GB3457@acm.acm> <20120313190052.GA2430@waltdnes.org> <20120313194727.GB2536@acm.acm> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-( Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v- X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:EcKYfrY8zGSMMJFsfU+ppda/KeC+8yE09fLCTL2nk0s XU/qw08+zNSqwL8qMnK485P/tJwk/33dpscVNmsmbER/p6CAIs xQ8AbOkyNgFfCdqiDGs0dtWpzGErj0k2WyA8xf/yOsj1Cl21dJ g8FIeG2tx2HDsoxvcadtuzgR8AhuuF8zEc1Pq4aSMXH+Vtao/y HfKeJJgEC0VSkZ3gr1xbcb2rpnSRBnf8Ns+tyY3HtGjo41GtV1 vaXpmDUi+a8NdV93IcwYobesWu10h7ZhKOOQYLmoTTB7F9+f5q pZD7OztGvjShnvASCrASgq5tq2FftJP21if0uxFLoiFX9fYCP4 7Pf6PqJFT3PIz+2v66nizlq02mC/+BoaYVsdAQlBCjVRAdFPNi I8SEJWQgk67bXIKx08iR4YkCa0O0jrrF8CnHoVv8+zAMk09IKq 1CJzF X-Archives-Salt: 0be56502-6e2f-4b4a-a5b8-548b9c3e2c6c X-Archives-Hash: 751f214c72dc1e1d8fc7fb57833dd702 On March 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM "Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s" wrote: > > "Fringe" programs will not require udev, or it will be optional; but > the moment a "fringe" program reaches critical mass to become > "maistream", the probability of it needing udev (directly or > indirectly) will increase. > > I'm willing to bet a beer on that prediction. > > Regards. > -- > Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s It _sounds_ like your definition of a "fringe" program is one that does not need udev; but when it becomes "mainstream" it will need udev. If not, you write us the definition of a "fringe" program and a "mainstream" program. Excuse me, but that's just incredibly _arrogant_! I wasn't getting into this ridiculous discussion, but your irresponsible ranting... Yes, I dedicate my "Linux life" to killing FUD, and that post of yours is FUD! I'm from the South, where FUD is colloquially called bull. <:-)} Below are some "mainstream" programs that my every computer on the LAN in my computer business uses _every_ day which don't require udev: x11-terms/rxvt-unicode app-editors/vim net-misc/dhcpcd ... The more I think about your arrogance, the more ticked off I get! Here's the very few packages on my workstation that _do_ require udev: mingdao@workstation ~ $ equery depends udev * These packages depend on udev: media-libs/libcanberra-0.28-r5 (udev ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-160) media-libs/mesa-7.11.2 (gbm ? sys-fs/udev) media-video/vlc-1.1.13 (udev ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-142) net-print/hplip-3.11.10 (acl ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-171[acl]) (acl ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-145[extras]) (kernel_linux ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-114) sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.88 (>=3Dsys-fs/udev-151-r4) virtual/dev-manager-0 (sys-fs/udev) x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2 (udev ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-150) x11-libs/cairo-1.10.2-r1 (drm ? >=3Dsys-fs/udev-136) x11-libs/libva-1.0.15 (video_cards_dummy ? sys-fs/udev) Perhaps it would be ridiculously easy to get rid of udev on this box. But, that's not the point I'm making here. It's not so much that udev is evil, to me; but that requiring an initrd is stupid. And, it's not so much udev vs. mdev or whatever, but that your attitude _STINKS_! Geez... -- Happy Penguin Computers >`) 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613 support at happypenguincomputers dot com http://www.happypenguincomputers.com