On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
The key misunderstanding here seems to be that initiation of a Gentoo
project means that the council explicitly supports it, because in most
distributions there is no choice available to end users at this level of
detail.
On 11/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what the first issue that
On 23:57 Sat 17 Nov , Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
I'm unsure on what grounds you disapprove. People start (and abandon)
projects often in Gentoo. Suddenly you dislike one such project and
object to this practice? Certainly if we had to get
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgraderedirect=no
Comments?
As I don't know who
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
See
I jumped off udev before I was pushed off...
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev/Automount_USB
While the Gentoo council meeting was looking at patches to udev on an
ongoing basis, I was planning for a worst-case scenario where a separate
/usr without initramfs
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 08:08:38PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, any specific pointer to a
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what the first issue that arose was, but I do
recall discussion that
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc?
Well, I can't vouch for what
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:59 AM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm glad someone else on this list finally realizes that udev did not break
separate /usr on its own. I've been trying to explain this to people
here for ages.
It isn't just programs that use libraries in /usr/lib that
On 19/11/12 16:59, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:39:59AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Joshua Kinard ku...@gentoo.org wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, udev isn't the problem here. It hasn't broken the standalone
/usr issue at all.
systemd-udev supporters have an interesting definition of broken.
I plead not guilty to vandalism your honour. The complainant's window
has
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:11:13PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
And note, Kay and Lennart are _not_ treating udev as a second-class
citizen.
I said *STAND-ALONE* udev. Please re-read the two posts...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2012-August/006066.html
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
why you are thinking that udev has anything to do with this issue
at all.
Before version 181, udev
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 11:30:58AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:04PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
There isn't anything in udev to change for this. I don't understand
why you are thinking that udev has anything to
On 18.11.2012 6.28, Greg KH wrote:
Also, you can not assign copyright to a third party, unless you have a
copyright assignment form. Do the developers doing this work have such
a form assigned? And in what country and state is that form valid for?
Different countries, and states, have
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Anyway, the commit is gone, which is good, thank you for deleting the
branch. Please be more careful about doing such things in the future.
We really don't want to get the Foundation in trouble by doing this type
of thing.
On 11/19/2012 02:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 05:35:22PM +0100, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) wrote:
El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong,
In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
--
Fabio Erculiani
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:22:14AM +0100, Fabio Erculiani wrote:
In my humble opinion, the real question is: why systemd got merged into udev?
I would love to hear a clear technical reason for that.
I recall this was discussed on the systemd mailing list when it
happened, so you might want to
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 09:08:52AM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Again, any specific pointer to a commit in the tree that caused this?
See http://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Udev/upgraderedirect=no
Comments?
Since this version udev depends on files in /usr. If you have /usr
on a separate
On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as an optional
dependency, so that distributions (and Gentoo users) that
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
I understand the bizarre need of some people to want to build the udev
binary without the build-time dependencies that systemd requires, but
surely that is a set of simple Makefile patches, right? And is
something that small
El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 11:13 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
dependency on kmod is not. The plan is to reintroduce it as
On 11/18/2012 04:48 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 11:13 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a mandatory
dependency on kmod
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18.11.2012 06:00, Richard Yao wrote:
but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not
been well defined.
[...]
With that said, Linux distributions are victims of people
continually trying to reinvent the wheel with no formal
Wow, that's some kind of thread you started... :) I'll respond in
general to a bunch of stuff on this list by topic.
COUNCIL MEETING
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
So, that's a nice summary, but, what is the end result here?
Speaking as somebody who was
On 18.11.2012 08:57, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kacper Kowalik xarthis...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18.11.2012 08:57, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the
El 18/11/12 04:39, Greg KH escribió:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that follow the normal body of Copyright Law. It
should be removed right now before someone gets
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some
disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't sponsored by
Gentoo, but this udev-ng/eudev/whatever thing does the
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
If these organizations aren't governed by Gentoo they should have some
disclaimers, saying that the projects hosted there aren't
Hey guys,
Just read through this entire thread, and one concern still rings loud
and clear -- what is the purpose of this fork?
The various responses I've read so far are something like:
- Because Linus yelled a lot when udev/Kay broke firmware loading.
Except both Linus and the udev people
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:48:33AM +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
El dom, 18-11-2012 a las 11:13 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió:
On 18/11/12 07:19, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
Having a builtin is a good idea, but the implementation as a
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and create
a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any review of
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
So here is the question I'll pose. Is it worth all of that extra
work for us to support separate /usr correctly, or should we just tell
everyone to start using initramfs or, if they don't want to use
initramfs and they
Rich Freeman wrote:
I think that there's a big difference about any developer
being allowed to create a project under the gentoo umbrella and
create a project and claim it as Gentoo sponsored without any
review of the council. I agree that it can exists in the Github
account, or even in
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yeah, but I think that there's a big
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
Hmm, pretty cool! Then I can create a stupid project, put it on gentoo
infra and claim it as being Gentoo sponsored. Good to know, thanks!
Just
On 11/18/2012 11:59 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
All I'm asking is some kind of coherent mission statement.
How can we define a mission statement when we are still in the process
of understanding the codebase, what it does well and what it can do better?
A project announcement should answer
On 11/18/2012 12:37 PM, Rafael Goncalves Martins wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins
rafaelmart...@gentoo.org wrote:
Yeah, but I think that there's a big difference about any developer
being
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/18/2012 11:59 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
All I'm asking is some kind of coherent mission statement.
How can we define a mission statement when we are still in the process
of understanding the codebase, what it does
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 01:51:14AM -0600, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
... systemd is a cross-distro project: every major and many, many
minor distros have had people contributing to systemd. last i heard
even two debian devs have commit access to the repo, among many
others. systemd upstream
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers. It's now
resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads firmware
directly, and on older kernels, udev has fixed the issue.) So that's no
longer an issue for
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
Yes, I know all about the firmware issue with media drivers. It's now
resolved and fixed, in two different ways (the kernel now loads firmware
directly, and on older
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:13:55PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 01:51:14AM -0600, Canek Pel??ez Vald??s wrote
... systemd is a cross-distro project: every major and many, many
minor distros have had people contributing to systemd. last i heard
even two debian devs
On 11/18/2012 10:06 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
It's a bizarre development model, I know. :)
Works better than Windows' model:
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
(Okay, old, and I know MS has since
On 18/11/2012 19:38, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc? Then kmod was changed to
link against libs in /usr/lib, and then udev made dependent on kmod? I
think that led to a scenario
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:42:11PM -0800, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 18/11/2012 19:38, Joshua Kinard wrote:
Correct me if wrong, but didn't the issue start with udev wanting to put the
PCI ID database/file into /usr/share from /etc? Then kmod was changed to
link against libs in /usr/lib,
On 18/11/2012 20:28, Greg KH wrote:
But note, we are moving that file out of pciutils (and the usb.ids file
out of usbutils) and they will eventually be generated from the udev
package itself, as it holds the master hardware database. But that's a
totally different topic than the one at hand,
On 11/18/2012 11:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Yes, it was always in /usr/somewhere.
And the pci.ids file came from the pciutils package, not udev.
But note, we are moving that file out of pciutils (and the usb.ids file
out of usbutils) and they will eventually be generated from the udev
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 08:02:07PM +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
Handling separate /usr support
==
WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr
systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such
as e.g. [1],
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
udev all those years ago, maybe
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
more original in your naming please, good thing I never trademarked
udev all those years ago, maybe I still
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that follow the normal body of Copyright Law. It
should be removed right now before someone gets
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
more original in your naming please, good thing I
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that follow the normal body of
On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
really? What happens when someone wants to fork that, -ng-ng? Be a bit
more original in
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that follow the normal body of
On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the moment (-ng,
really? What happens
On 11/17/2012 11:28 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:28:00AM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:26:41PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
Thanks for clarifying that. It will be fixed before it goes into HEAD.
I recommend deleting the branch and starting over, having that commit
floating around like that could cause trouble.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 11/17/2012 11:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:25:11PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 11:19 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:00PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I see an entertaining fork of udev on github at the
On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not been
well defined.
Can I step in and just as you to
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:06:38PM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/17/2012 10:39 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Anyway, I now see a _very_ dangerous commit in the Copyright branch
that better not get merged into the tree, as it's wrong, and illegal
under all countries that follow the normal body of
On 11/18/2012 12:05 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 17/11/2012 21:00, Richard Yao wrote:
I am afraid that I have to disappoint you. If we were using the
waterfall model, I could outline some very nice long term goals for you,
but we are doing AGILE development, so long term goals have not
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing such goals,
there's no way that
On 17/11/2012 21:13, Richard Yao wrote:
I would appreciate it if people would avoid harassing others that decide
to develop things different than what they want to use. Read GLEP 0039:
And I would appreciate if you'd avoid making us look like a bunch of
wannabes, by using buzzwords like
On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
But you've made Gentoo the laughing stock of the Linux world over the
past couple of days, and now you come up with this? Please get a clue,
please.
Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
to the widespread
On 17/11/2012 21:26, Richard Yao wrote:
Arguably, the fact that others forced our hand before we were ready lead
to the widespread attention. With that said, responses to Gentoo have
always been mixed, but I have seen far more positive responses than
negative responses and I am quite happy
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:13:37AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
We do not need to justify the need for our project before it is
announced or even after it is announced. It is free to conflict with
RedHat's systemd project. If we find next year that we can reconcile
with Kay Sievers and Lennart
On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and your fork
makes sense, perhaps, to me, not. But without knowing
On 11/18/2012 12:35 AM, Greg KH wrote:
So, I'll say this again, why is this project getting the copyright of
the Gentoo Foundation? Is it an official project of Gentoo in some
manner?
One developer who asked to join our project as we are in the process of
getting started thought he would be
On 11/18/2012 12:20 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you're going quite a tad overboard,
and looks like your concept of development is I'm not sure of what I'm
doing, but I'm doing it anyway.
It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, I will develop X!,
On 17/11/2012 21:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, I will develop X!, and
then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
how to start. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, you
just roll dice. That's what
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I would
not have asked about them. Perhaps I am totally wrong and
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:49 AM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:35:22AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
On 11/18/2012 12:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00:52AM -0500, Richard Yao wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in your goals, in detail, otherwise I
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
flamee...@flameeyes.eu wrote:
On 17/11/2012 21:52, Joshua Kinard wrote:
It's human nature to wake up one day and exclaim, I will develop X!, and
then go off and do so without any formal planning or even a rough idea of
how to start.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
accomplished by:
- getting patches approved upstream
or:
- keeping a simple set of patches outside of
On 17/11/2012 23:05, Doug Goldstein wrote:
Diego I'm going to have to call you out here. You've so far in this
thread claimed you were the reason behind the eudev project and now
claim you're behind OpenRC. Sounds like bragging to me.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not behind any of
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on hate only lasts
so long. I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
place over 9 years ago.
The Xfree86 people generated a lot of hate, just
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
As I posted elsewhere, working on a project based on hate only lasts
so long. I should know, that's the reason I started udev in the first
place
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
trying to attempt to do with a fork of udev that could not be
accomplished by:
- getting patches
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Greg KH gre...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 02:05:39AM -0500, Walter Dnes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:22PM -0800, Greg KH wrote
But, along those lines, what is the goal of the fork? What are you
trying to attempt to do with a fork of
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:02:19PM -0800, Alec Warner wrote:
1) systemd-udev will require systemd. Stated by the systemd
maintainers themselves as a thing they want to do in the future. Some
users don't want to use systemd. We could go into detail as to why;
but I think that is not as
90 matches
Mail list logo
