On 25/02/14 15:26, Thomas D. wrote: > No, not locations. My choice was not to use systemd. Now a package, > sys-fs/udev, turns into systemd-udev... > > Also: If it wouldn't be possible to keep sys-fs/udev as it was I > wouldn't bother that much. But as said, Lars (Polynomial-C) showed us > that we don't need to turn sys-fs/udev into systemd-udev... > > So I am asking why we are doing that for people who don't use systemd?
Nobody is doing anything except using upstream names for those files and directories as defined in the Makefile.am I can't speak for everybody, but in general, we are not in the business of randomly changing things when there is no technical reason for it I couldn't care less about the so called 'pro-systemd', or 'anti-systemd' propaganda that's out there. And nobody can influence me with that crap for udev's maintenance. I'm completely neutral to that spat, and even if I weren't, I wouldn't bring that crap over to udev's maintenance. What requires to be done will be done, to keep the functionality up-par with the sys-fs/udev-171 we had as longstanding version before. Only technical arguments have weight.
