On Tue, 8/23/16, Steve Litt <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev] To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2016, 5:10 PM >> On Sun, 8/21/16, Daniel Reurich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Subject: Re: [DNG] eudev [was: vdev] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Sunday, August 21, 2016, 3:08 PM >> >> >> >> He guys, >> >> >> >> I've been at work for a week or so and today I looked at the DNG >> >> list for the latest activities around vdev, but there has almost >> >> been no activity on vdev as far as I can see. OTOH, last week I >> >> tested eudev on a separate partition and that seems to work quite >> >> well. >> > >> > You are mistaken, there has been lots of activity around vdev and >> > making it installable. >> > >> >> >> >> I think it might be a good idea to leave vdev for what it is and >> >> to switch to eudev. It is moreorless maintained (the latest change >> >> is two weeks ago) and it works well. We should not reinvent the >> >> wheel IMHO. And as there has been no response from the original >> >> vdev author, I think it's better to package eudev for Devuan and >> >> to make it available for Jessie and Ascii. The latest version is >> >> 3.2. >> > >> > Well quite frankly you don't get to make that call. Eudev is just a >> > hack that from what I gather is isolating the systemd-udev changes >> > and bringing them in to eudev. IMHO that is less sustainable then >> > vdev because it relies on developers from systemd to play nice with >> > udev and not deprecate features that don't serve systemd's needs. >> > At the end of the day, I consider eudev as at best marginally >> > better the eudev, but still far to closely coupled with systemd to >> > be useful in the medium to long term. >> > >> > With regards to vdev, I'm sure if Jude didn't come back, others >> > would pick up his work and progress it, as is happening now around >> > packaging it. I think it rather disingenuous of you to imply it's >> > a dead project whilst claiming that eudev, the re-animated zombie >> > of systemd-udev as a better and only option. It's not better, and >> > it's not the only option either. >> > >> > Whilst I respect the work to package eudev and having it as an >> > option in Devuan, I will personally very loudly push back on any >> > attempt to derail alternatives such as vdev - unless those >> > alternative are demonstrably built on the same flawed design >> > principles as systemd. >> > >> > Daniel. >> > >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> I agree that relying on anything connected to udev will likely not be >> sustainable in the long term. I was reminded of this just today in a >> private discussion I'm having with someone over at FDN . . . yes, I >> still hang out there to advocate for non-systemd Linux. S/he posted >> this link which finally pushed them over the edge and away from the >> path that Debian has taken: >> >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html >> > By the way, when did Linux OK kdbus? > > SteveT > --------------------------------------------
I don't think they have. That was Lennart's wishful thinking. Wasn't it around that time that Kay Sievers tried and Linus boxed him hard upside the head and sent him packing? golinux _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
