Re: systemd 183 and /lib/udev/devices/

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:20:43AM -0700, Paul Bender wrote:
> On 5/27/2012 10:39 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >>On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Allin Cottrell<cottrell@wfu.edu>
> >>wrote:
> >>>There's no reference to /dev/pts or /dev/shm in fstab, but at run
> >>>time /dev/pts is populated and there's a tmpfs mounted on /dev/shm.
> >>>How can I tell whether I need the systemd-tmpfiles workaround?
> >>
> >>The mountpoints are created by systemd[0], so no need to do anything
> >>to make this work.
> >
> >So... machines without systemd are screwed, unless they resurrect the
> >bootscripts that copied these nodes, from way back before udevd started
> >to do it itself?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Whenever someone decides to violate the separation of utilities that
> make Unix like distributions so powerful, the end user is harmed.
> This is what the people behind systemd has chosen to do, yet falsely
> claim otherwise (after all, if you cannot use udev without building
> the rest of systemd, they are not separate).

There is a long history of needing more tools on the system to build a
program, than to use them, see all of the different build system ways of
specifying just this very thing.

> Given its current direction, I suspect that systemd will suffer the
> some fate as Hal. That is, it will become something that the
> community rejects because it attempted to absorb everything.
> Unfortunately, end users suffer in the mean time.

The "community" didn't reject hal, the developers realized they got it
wrong.

> The sooner we fork udev, the better.

Feel free to, no one is stopping you.  Also, some people seem to like
mdev for some reason, perhaps you should try that out instead.

Best of luck,

greg k-h