From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 23:37:56 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 00/12 v8] Introduce libudev (branch yem/libudev-4) In-Reply-To: <20160718175241.GA3738@free.fr> (Yann E. MORIN's message of "Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:52:41 +0200") References: <20160716154736.19dd42fb@free-electrons.com> <20160718175241.GA3738@free.fr> Message-ID: <87twfawymj.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Yann" == Yann E MORIN writes: Hi Yann, >> So I'm not sure if it's really worth the effort. After all, installing >> only libudev without eudev is not really supported upstream (we have to >> trick by building only some subdirectories). >> >> I'm not entirely decided yet, so I'm waiting for arguments. But I'm >> hesitating between merging this, or asking people who really care about >> this to simply remove the eudev daemon in a post-build script. > But then you would not have libudev if you use mdev or a static /dev. Is that a common use case? I wouldn't expect anybody to use static /dev any more, and if you are using mdev then that is presumably for running scripts on hotplug events? If so, why not just use the udev daemon for this? I do understand this could be useful for using libudev with devtmpfs /dev, but wouldn't a simple post-build script to rm S10udev + udevd get us 90% of the way without any extra complexity? -- Venlig hilsen, Peter Korsgaard