On Mar 14, 2012 10:20 PM, "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote: >
---- >8 snippage > > Walter is, I believe, mistaken here. I can mount and use my LVM2 > partitions. Gnome looks like it comes up OK, but that could be moot, > since right now I haven't got keyboard/mouse drivers under the X server. > This post here: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2011-September/076662.html seems to indicate that Xorg communicates with udev (something mdev can't do, because that would increase the complexity of mdev by several orders of magnitude). BUT, in the same message, it is stated that Xorg *can* be compiled to *not* try to communicate with udev. I suspect a similar situation with Gnome. > > I will not be surprised if in the future the list of programs "not for > > mdev" only grows. > > There's a difference between "needed by portage" and "doesn't work under > mdev". As I say, it will all be moot if the evdev driver won't work > under mdev. > Do packages *actually* need udev's (over)features (read: bloat), or is it just the maintainers depend-ing on sys-fs/udev instead of virtual/device-manager ? For lots of packages claiming they depend on udev, I suspect it's the latter situation. Rgds,
