From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 21:14:40 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] What to do about systemd/udev/eudev? In-Reply-To: <946118.25355.bm@smtp119.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <1362312574-17701-1-git-send-email-olivier.schonken@gmail.com> <20130303195436.49654719@skate> <87ppzf9d2h.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <946118.25355.bm@smtp119.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130304211440.1b5e2c03@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Kevin Chadwick, On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 19:52:09 +0000, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > It's worth bearing in mind however that in the long run and if eudev is > still around then I would expect (2) to be by far the best option for > their reduced dependencies, older kernel support and just general > all round sane and considerate decision making. We already have support for static /dev, devtmpfs or mdev, and none of those options require *any* dependency beyond some basic kernel options and Busybox. So for anyone looking for a lightweight solution, we already have plenty of choices. > It's been a few weeks since I checked, is eudev considered stable yet. > When it is I'd say (2) definately. > > Why not both. I don't believe there is too much difference? and eudev > is tracking udev but less so the other way around I believe. If someone contributes sane patches that implement both systemd-udev and eudev, then we will of course review them and consider them. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com