[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: net-tools future

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 02:37:44PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Mar 20, Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
> > > You keep missing the point. udev matters in the host system, not in each
> > > context.
> > Do you mean the original point of this thread, about ifrename (which indeed
> > can't be used inside vserver or openvz, can be in xen)?  Or do you mean
> > other uses of udev?
> About udev in general.

udev is needed to allow for complex and/or hotplugged hardware.  Small
systems have either little, static hardware, or no hardware at all.

> > I have Gnome installed on a sid vserver, used it no farther than a couple of
> > days ago to test something.
> Then you had to have udev installed, because it's a dependency of
> gnome-volume-manager.

| Status=Not/Inst/Cfg-files/Unpacked/Failed-cfg/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name                   Version                Description
pn  udev                   <none>                 (no description available)

Indeed, that's how I learned that udev breaks vservers.  That's in a good
part my fault, I installed the whole bulk of Gnome without trimming things
utterly useless on a headless box.  gnome-volume-manager has no place there.

But, let's return to the original claim which I disagree with:
> Every relevant Linux distribution requires udev, and so do many
> important features of Debian systems. Anything not compatible with udev
> is a toy which wastes space in the archive. Welcome to 2008.

I can agree that there's no need to support _hardware-related_ things which
are incompatible with udev.  Yet, pieces of Debian which do not need to talk
to hardware directly (ie, 95% of the archive) should not require udev.

I also say that systems without udev installed are legitimate.

1KB		// Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
		//	Never attribute to stupidity what can be
		//	adequately explained by malice.

Reply to: