On Aug 24, martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> wrote: > > udev has also been the hotplug multiplexer for some time now. > Yeah. Horrible. Will udev become an editor and MTA too, maybe after > etch? No. But since it had to deal with most events, applying the same process to the others was a natural extension of its design. > > 2.4 kernels will not be supported in etch, > I don't think this is an authoritative statement. At the moment, > some architectures do not work with 2.6. It's an educated guess. I consulted some of the interested maintainers and followed the debian-kernel list, and so far there is no sign that 2.4 will be supported (and if 2.6 will not be fixed on architectures like sparc32, too bad for them). > > and we never tried to support proprietary drivers if doing so > > harms the rest of the system. > Apart from the tg3-and-related stuff, we never took active action > to make lives of those in need of proprietary drivers any more > difficult than it already is. We are not discussing changes because I am bored, but because there are sound technical reasons which justify them. > > Some people have reservations, but they appear to be driver more > > by emotion than by technical reasons. > Really? I have technical issues with udev-does-it-all, and I have > issues with the upstream decisions. On a technical level, udev is > too Gentoo for me, it's far from stable, and thus far from > non-optional integration into Debian. This is my two cents. Both SuSE and Red Hat have made udev mandatory, so you will need much better arguments if you want to persuade people that udev has fundamental design problems which make it unsuitable for Debian. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature