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

[Paul Bender <pebender@san.rr.com>]

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).

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 sooner we fork udev, the better.