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 020D813840B for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 71B6D21C05A; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFBA6E049A for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:33:57 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArENAG6Zu09MCo48/2dsb2JhbABEgXuwewOBGIEIghUBAQEBAgEBAjccKAsLIRMSDwUUETeICQULuX6LYoFEgjxiA4hChHyFOIIkgRCET4g6gViDBw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="212333686" Received: from 76-10-142-60.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([76.10.142.60]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 2013 17:33:56 -0500 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:33:30 -0500 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:33:30 -0500 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 moves from /usr/lib to /lib Message-ID: <20130111223330.GA16377@waltdnes.org> References: 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 28a3dca5-ff1e-4d28-aa6e-9d954657056c X-Archives-Hash: aa29d5709911555354c9fdfc819767a3 On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:42:37AM -0600, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote > No, because the problem has never been in udev (nor systemd, for that > matter). It fixes how *Gentoo* packages udev; probably the devs read > the following comment from Lennart (note it was written almost a month > ago): > > https://plus.google.com/u/0/115547683951727699051/posts/jcCjMct3SJ3 The systemd defenders are using "separate /usr" as a "wookie defense" in an attempt to divert attention form the main issue. Separate /usr is actually a secondary issue. The main issue is whether or not we get systemd rammed down our throats. Lennart and Kay are the people responsible for scaring others into mdev and/or eudev. First Kay... http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-July/006065.html > We promised to keep udev properly *running* as standalone, we never > told that it can be *build* standalone. And that still stands. > > We never claimed, that all the surrounding things like documentation > always fully match, if only udev is picked out of systemd. > > I would welcome if people stop reading that "promise" into the > announcement, it just wasn't written there. And then Lennart... http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html > (Yes, udev on non-systemd systems is in our eyes a dead end, in case > you haven't noticed it yet. I am looking forward to the day when we > can drop that support entirely.) > > Lennart > > -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. The only assumption I'm making is that Kay and Lennart aren't lying. Kay tells us that we may eventually not be able to build udev standalone; i.e. we may have to build systemd in order to run udev. Gentoo users are familiar with cascading dependancies which tend to bloat our systems, as well as introducing additional points of failure. Lennart goes one step further and looks forward to the day that we may not be able to run udev without running systemd. For those of us who do not want to build, let alone run, systemd, these 2 messages are more than sufficient justification for the eudev fork. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications