On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote: > I see an "entertaining" fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng, > really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit > more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked > "udev" all those years ago, maybe I still should...)
That was a placeholder name. If you checked before you sent your email, you would see that we had settled on eudev. > But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you > trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be > accomplished by: > - getting patches approved upstream > or: > - keeping a simple set of patches outside of the upstream tree and > applying them to each release The goal is to replace systemd as upstream for Gentoo Linux, its derivatives and any distribution not related to RedHat. > I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev > binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but > surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right? And is > something that small really worth ripping tons of code out of a working > udev, causing major regressions on people's boxes (and yes, it is a > regression to slow my boot time down and cause hundreds of more > processes to be spawned before booting is finished.) See the following: https://github.com/gentoo/eudev/issues/3
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
