Bruce Hill wrote: > 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.
I find it fitting that me and Linus agree on udev. ROFL I'm not alone but still. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
