On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:45:41 -0600 William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 07:11:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Alexis Ballier > > <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 19:34:52 -0600 > > > William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > >> And, as for right now, udev-229 is in the tree, so udev can > > >> still be extracted and run standalone from systemd. > > > > > > and even with that, I don't think there is anything preventing > > > using systemd-udev from an openrc boot, is it ? (ie, have systemd > > > installed but booting with openrc) > > > > > > > Correct, you can uninstall sys-fs/(e)udev and install > > sys-apps/systemd, then boot with openrc, and udev will work just > > fine. > > This is correct. udev does not require systemd in order to run; the > only thing it needs is the systemd build environment since there is > common source code. > > The primary reason we have sys-fs/udev in the tree these days is so > people can have upstream udev without installing systemd. > > In theory, we could lastrites sys-fs/udev and make sys-apps/systemd > the default udev provider, but I'm sure that change would be even > more controversial than what we are discussing. ;-) It would probably generate controversy indeed, but my comment was more to understand what is the root of the f34R of udev being absorbed by systemd: "it is supposedly unsupported upstream and might not work at some point". Well, as far as I can see, you are maintaining sys-fs/udev standalone and don't intend to drop it. Even if you did, we could still pkgmove it to systemd. My conclusion is that this claim of udev being a dead end is pure FUD. Alexis.