Re: udev fork

Greg KH
2012-09-12T18:14:09Z

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 06:09:09PM +0000, sickmind@lavabit.com wrote:
> On 13:03 Wed 12 Sep , Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > sickmind@lavabit.com wrote:
> > > On 17:49 Wed 12 Sep , sickmind@lavabit.com wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I know that many people do not like the way udev development went
> > >> recently, therefore we have a systemd-free fork of udev. At the moment
> > >> most of the changes (except for systemd integration) have been ported,
> > >> and no stability issues are noticed. I hope it will be useful for those
> > >> who don't like systemd being pushed in their systems.
> > >>
> > >> P.S. This maillist seems to be dead for quite a while and most of the
> > >> discussion moved to systemd-related lists, so I hope nobody would mind
> > >> if we use it as our primary maillist.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in
> > >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > >
> > > BTW, I totally forgot to include a link to the repo. Here it is:
> > > https://bitbucket.org/braindamaged/udev
> >
> > A fork is way too much effort. The only thing you need is a different
> > Makefile. For a package that is Linux only, using autotools seems to be
> > a tremendous amount of overkill.
> >
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/udev.html
> > http://anduin.linuxfromscratch.org/sources/other/udev-lfs-189.tar.bz2
> >
> > Works for us.
> >
> > -- Bruce
>
> This is not entirely true. A different makefile might be a temporary
> solution, but udev is already dependent on libsystemd, and I'm afraid
> this process may go much much further.

I don't understand, what specifically is your objection with something
that might happen in the future? And, since it hasn't happened, how can
you object to it?

confused,

greg k-h