On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:26 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 04/29/2012 04:11 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 14:59 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > >> On 04/27/2012 03:28 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 08:55 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>>> On 04/27/12 03:32, Adam Borowski wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:08:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 02:03:17PM -0400, Jonas Smedegaard > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> I believe Debian still supports running locally compiled > >>>>>>> kernels which do not depend on udev, and that some setups do > >>>>>>> not require udev either (not everyone use fibre channel). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is supported only in the sense that it is not yet impossible. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please don't ask anyone to spend time to avoid udev dependencies; > >>>>>> hotplugging is normal and udev is the proper way to handle all > >>>>>> devices the Linux kernel finds. > >>>> > >>>> udev is just the reference implementation. mdev [part of busybox] can > >>>> do the same (modulo rules: it has a slightly simpler format that > >>>> doesn't provide exactly the same features (yet)) > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> Sure, for Linux in general you have other options like mdev. However, > >>> Debian uses udev. > >> > >> > >> Debian installs udev by default, but as with other init systems it should > >> not stop your from using whatever-you-like instead of udev. > > > > Of course, Debian has many derivative distributions that use some alternate > > components. > > > Please stop trolling. > There is no reason why we should not allow people to use mdev or whatever they > like instead of udev. I'm perfectly serious. You may be able to do that today, but you should not expect it to work and should not report a bug if you are later forced to install udev as a depdendency of some other package. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part