On 6/27/2014 3:59 AM, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > On 26/06/2014 17:43, Paul Wise wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Alastair McKinstry wrote: >> >>> udev itself is disabled in scripts as it keeps crashing >>> on my hardware. (Old powerpc server). >> Which bug number is this? >> > This is a bug that I _think_ (following the lists) has since been fixed > upstream, but I am reluctant to test > on an operational server with unusual hardware. In practice for my use > case I can just ignore it; there are few event changes > on the system and I can live with just disabling udev , killing it on > reboot, but I can't remove it > from the system as there are dependencies in other code on it. > I will test again when updating to jessie, but until then I prefer to > leave the server alone. > > udev has not really been a problem for me. My concern was using popcon > as a measure of success > of a package when its "required dependency" and lack of realistic > alternatives is the > crux of the argument. > > My fear is that systemd + friends are becoming a required framework, > subverting the Unix > ethos of a bunch of co-operating tools and libraries. It becomes > increasing impossible to > simply replace a component I might disagree with, or that breaks my use > case, with one I develop > because of all the cross-dependencies. While "if you disagree, write a > replacement" is the traditional answer > in Linux/Debian, we need to look out and make sure that remains possible. > > regards > Alastair > Wouldn't glibc then fall into the list of things you don't like as a "required framework"? By that logic, all libraries must be hot-swappable with no additional effort by the end-user. That's just not realistic. -Michael
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature