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 1R4Da6-0000yp-8I for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:10:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8B11821C2D2; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B977A21C218 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkbzt12 with SMTP id zt12so3497764bkb.40 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:08:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=I/yjI11sfBsJPbTMigyKjpb/ebbr9c1sHiYfCDWYPic=; b=cD9gwtvNHOeh93p1tRzy1m/li9aLT2MEIUJTCqPOGGj8eVFlte+VRjY+z4gyN4POaR tCYlrmBLGiw6qgY8kU3SBpLpfDHzOsY+khGma+QP3890ztY0iszL/G81vVlM25vyooLj USBAP03os5SafI/JCPGM6Rl4yoORJ85L+4GQQ= 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 Received: by 10.204.132.68 with SMTP id a4mr817325bkt.154.1316099316830; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:08:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.155.79 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:08:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110912150248.GB3599@acm.acm> <2056931.seTjzgOPrt@eve> <1900171.RYZackCgQ3@eve> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:08:36 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 28d4c13618c84a9f3295ebf35eae3cb8 On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as > Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of > possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not. > KISS. If you want KISS by imposing rules on the many to make responsibilities fewer for the few, build a walled garden. Building a safe playground has never been what Linux has been about, or what it has been advocated or marketed as, in the ten or so years I've been using it. > > It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can > do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for > lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do > anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less > systems. While I came down on the CUPS side of that argument, udev is a very different beast. --=20 :wq