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

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems

Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:

> This thread was originally about udev, yet everyone is starting again
> the systemd / upstart / sysv-rc war. I think we can agree that we don't
> about the init system, and it wasn't my intention to restart this
> debate.

> However, how should Debian see this udev fork? Could it be beneficial to
> Debian somehow? Is there the will to maintain it? Are the udev (or
> kernel) maintainers opposing this (future) fork to enter Debian? If yes,
> on what ground? Is it even realistic to think Debian could use such a
> fork, which probably the upstream kernel maintainers wont support? What
> is the view of kernel.org people on this btw?

I think part of the reason why the conversation hasn't been very
productive is that this is somewhat premature.  At this point, I think the
only reason to know about the fork (still a significant reason, don't get
me wrong!) is so that anyone in Debian who feels motivated to help out
with the fork can join the upstream development team.

In terms of it being a viable choice for integration into Debian, it's way
too early to know one way or the other, and there's really no point in
speculating (which is why the speculation goes off into unproductive
corners like the long-standing init system argument).  There are things
that could happen that would make it clearly a bad choice (the fork
doesn't stay viable enough to produce releases) or clearly a good choice
(most of the existing udev developers end up contributing to the fork and
then it becomes the official udev, similar to what happened to gcc in the
egcs days).  The debate is mostly over the likelihood of those and other
intermediate possibilities, and rather than arguing about it, we could
just wait and see.  :)

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: