> I think the fact that I pointed out clearly shows that there is very good > technical reason to exclude udev, unless you are willing to be the maintainer > of udev outside systemd source tree in Devuan.
[T.J. ] Please understand that I very much respect your position, and I agree with you that a "put up or shut up" attitude can be warranted in many instances. However, I do not believe that this is one of them. The shortest and most reasonable route to release a stable 1.0 of Devuan is to use udev for the present. THAT in and of itself trumps your concerns in my opinion. I will admit that I find Jude's proposal intriguing - but it is hardly ready for use. Eudev might make a good replacement, but udev is still the best candidate in terms of people using it if you follow the principle that "eyes make bugs shallow". What I am going to say next is no reflection on you, nor anyone else here. But since the subject came up, I will be straightforward with you. I know that some might take offense to what I am going to say, and that's fine. If you feel that I should not make future comment, then by all means, please ignore me, and I won't speak further with you on the subject. I could maintain udev, if I were actually part of Devuan. While I have recently returned to the list, I am waiting to see what Devuan is going to do with 1.0 before I decide to commit any effort to the project. If one of the VUAs asked me to assist with a specific task, I would consider it - but otherwise, I will not. Past experience with the Devuan community has left me in a position of uncertainty about becoming actively involved at all. From my point of view, past conversations here have been as "toxic" as Debian and the rest of Linux in general. I find that tiresome, and until I see something to inspire me, I am unmoved. Best regards T.J. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
