4 ms·

Can anyone summarize what the debate is about here? I feel like I'm reading a very tiny slice of a larger debate. Is this just another example of systemd aggres

• jmspring 10y ago
  My thinking is "basically yes" to your last question given my reading of the thread.
• WestCoastJustin 10y ago
  Yeah, it's confusing. Without more context it's hard to tell what we should get out of this. From what I've read, he seems to have a good point. You want to submit patches, that are not testable, or maintainable. The title is totally editorialized to make it seem like this person is holding something up but he makes good point.
• digi_owl 10y ago
  Udev existed for nearly a decade on its own before it was merged with systemd. And upon that merger, Sievers, the then maintainer of udev and a close buddy of Poettering, promised that udev would still be usable without systemd. But since then every time the topic comes up, the systemd devs (Poettering and Sievers in particular) as gone back on that promise.
• anonbanker 10y ago
  The larger debate is that Lennart and company, developers with very poor histories of playing nice with the community at large, are continuing to swallow more items that are outside the scope of an init daemon, and creating a monolithic replacement for the separated core utilities (and GNU itself), very much against the UNIX/Plan9/Inferno traditions of many small apps that "do one thing, and do it well". In this case, they are attempting to embrace/extend/extinguish forks of udev by making them wholly incompatible with systemd's implementation going forward. These are not actions that are welcome in the community, hence the large amount of vitriol from those opposed to it.