Joost Roeleveld posted on Sun, 18 Sep 2011 17:22:42 +0200 as excerpted: > On Saturday, September 17, 2011 06:40:03 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36:27AM +0200, Joost Roeleveld wrote: >> (The other reason I think systemd and udev might merge at some point, >> or at least have good IPC between them, because there is a potential >> for speed gains there). > > If udev and systemd merge, what will happen with people not using > systemd? > > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread, either, and it bothered me too. With a moment's thought, I decided I could probably return to a semi- static dev setup reasonably easily. I'd potentially turn on the early-dev option in the kernel that I still have off, ATM, which presumably would mount a tmpfs on dev and populate it with the earliest devices. After that, if necessary, I'd copy the existing udev-created nodes out to a persistent state dir, and copy them back in with a little init-time script of my own. As long as the device ordering remains stable, this could include by-label, etc, symlinks, or I could simply kill the by- label, by-uid stuff in fstab, and go back to traditional devices there, too. Either that, or simply go back to a static /dev entirely. People with dynamic ordered devices may have to devise their own scripts, tho, or perhaps more likely, fork off udev from the pre-union state. But it's also possible that's far enough in the future that we can't really answer the question now, since technology will have changed enough to make an answer now look senseless, then. Consider trying to answer the question in terms of the kernel devfs back before udev. The tech simply changed and those answers wouldn't really work, today. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
