Following up to what T.J. said... On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:15 PM, T.J. Duchene <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 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". > I thought it was already settled and decided by the VUA that Devuan Jessie will use udev. I agree with this stance, for the same reason as T.J. points out--udev is production-ready, whereas vdev is not. It's the pragmatic thing to do--I only have a handful of hours per week to work on vdev, so it makes no sense to hold up the release waiting for it. However, I think the plan is to offer vdev as a udev alternative in at least ascii, so users who want to try it out will be able to do so with minimal effort. Thanks, Jude
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
