Re: Idea: Rename package `udev` to `systemd-udev`, plus new `udev` metapackage, to "preserve freedom of choice of init systems".
On 02/11/14 01:37, Martinx - ジェームズ wrote:
Thoughts?!
As I understand it, eudev is intended to provide all of udev's
externally-visible functionality in an interface-compatible way, so it
seems to me that whoever packages eudev should *probably* be able to
declare it to be an adequate replacement for udev simply by adding
"Provides: udev" to the control file. (udev is not designated
'essential', so you don't need to do the elaborate dance that was done
with the new 'init' metapackage.)
(ObDisclaimer: I am not a Debian packager, so my understanding of Debian
policy may be incomplete, and this isn't the best place for discussing
Debian packaging anyway.)
As for mdev: you need to talk to the Debian maintainer of busybox about
that, since mdev is part of the busybox upstream source package. I will
note that mdev should probably *not* be marked "Provides: udev", since
judging by this page on the gentoo wiki:
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev
it *isn't* an interface-compatible drop-in replacement for udev.
Reply to: