Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jeremy Huntwork > <jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote: >> On 5/28/12 2:52 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> The problem is that none of these libraries are used for udev. On a >>> recent blfs system, where the systemd dependent libraries are installed, >>> I as able to build and looked at the executables and libraries. AFAIK, >>> the only ones are /bin/udevadm, /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd, >>> /lib/libudev.so.1.0.0 and /usr/lib/udev/*. >> Perhaps the best solution is to complain loudly to upstream and hope >> that enough do so that they build into the package the ability to build >> and install only the udev components as they said would be possible. > > Have any of you guys considered actually making patches and sending > them upstream? The autotools are not that scary. Having been both > upstream and downstream, my guess is that those guys will accept > patches that allow a udev-only build, but they just don't have any > interest in doing that work themselves. I'm sure there are more than a > few people around who are interested in that scenario (they're already > showing up on the hotplug list) who would test and push for the > patches. If it's that critical to keep systemd out of LFS, then you'd > probably be best served by taking control of the situation. IMO. > > Here's an untested patch to get you started.
Good points. I've started working in this direction. The easy bits are already sent to linux-hotplug (though I'm not sure if that's the right list or not; we'll see). Waiting to see what they say about the patch to remove the include of <sys/capability.h> and splitting the library to no longer require dbus for systemd-udevd.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
