Greg KH wrote:
> Steven J Long wrote:
>> And that is what we were discussing: possible future coupling between the
>> two, which is much easier to do when the sources are part of the
>> same package.
..
>> OFC you could just assure us that udev will never rely on systemd as a
>> design decision. I can understand that systemd might need close
>> integration with the underlying udev implementation.
>
> Nope, can't make that assurance at all.
>
> Actually, maybe I can make the opposite assurance
Well, thanks for being straightforward about it: clearly you're keeping the
option of udev requiring systemd open, and in fact want to move toward that.
> , let's see what the future brings... :)
>
Yeah, we'll see :) You have udev working nicely, fulfilling a whole load of
use-cases, and now you want to upwardly-couple to er, a service-manager.
Running as pid 1, no less, even though it's not necessary. (I predict that
latter decision will get reversed in a while, just like a /usr partition
went from an anachronism to a grand new design, and xml config formats are
no longer talked about; thankfully binary logs got slammed back out the door
in-kernel at least[1].)
Not build another thing utilising udev and dbus, not even one closely
integrated, but upwardly-couple every Linux system to that new userspace
project. Good luck with that.
steveL.
[1]
http://lwn.net/Articles/492134/--
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
