On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: > > Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. > Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. > The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't > control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's > not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended > on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug > events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper > resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few > ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was > facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. > Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand > that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial > dependencies.)
You're stumbling upon it ... just keep hashing it out. The decision to write a new init system (systemd) and do things altogether differently is exactly what caused your previously referred to train wreck. And Kay Sievers collaborating with Lennart on this corrupted udev. Take those two prima donnas out of the udev destruction, and no such init problem exists today ... just as it didn't exist before then, for so many years. Linus didn't tolerate what they did to module and firmware loading: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 and he placed the blame squarely on Lennart and Kay where it belongs. To quote Linus Torvalds: "What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it?" Bank on it ... he *will* keep these prima donnas from destroying it. There's quite the historical precedent for such. -- Happy Penguin Computers >') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ [email protected] 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
