| |||||||||||||
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new nameShuttleworth: Quality has a new namePosted Apr 24, 2012 22:43 UTC (Tue) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)In reply to: Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name by dlang Parent article: Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name
We don't support udev in an separate tarball anymore. We do support udev built from the systemd tree used independently of systemd. We need that for our own initrds, so we will support that for a long time.
Lennart
(Log in to post comments)
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 24, 2012 23:49 UTC (Tue) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] Is there a big problem to write a couple of lines that generate a separate udev tarball for those who don't need the systemd part?
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 25, 2012 5:09 UTC (Wed) by scientes (guest, #83068) [Link]
I don't think Ubuntu is using a tarball, I think they are using git.
(I was going to write a mocking post initially)
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 25, 2012 9:31 UTC (Wed) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]
There isn't a big problem having the systemd code in the source tarballs for udev packages.
Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name Posted Apr 25, 2012 8:54 UTC (Wed) by chrisV (subscriber, #43417) [Link]
"We don't support udev in an separate tarball anymore. We do support udev built from the systemd tree used independently of systemd. We need that for our own initrds, so we will support that for a long time."
Then why did you say in your Google+ posting:
"Because [Canonical] have not adopted systemd they will have to continue to develop and support infrastructure (such as ConsoleKit, independent udev) that is officially orphaned by its developers and maintainers. They are stuck with a half-obsolete stack that receives no new development"
Both your statements cannot be true, except perhaps in relation to ConsoleKit (if independent development of that is ceasing), but that is a relatively trivial piece of code.
|
|||||||||||||