From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Bender Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 18:20:43 +0000 Subject: Re: systemd 183 and /lib/udev/devices/ Message-Id: <4FC2707B.2010807@san.rr.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On 5/27/2012 10:39 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Tom Gundersen wrote: >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Allin Cottrell >> 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.