On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 01:55:02AM +0000, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 07:10:59PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:27:23 -0500
> > Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:57:29AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If you're talking about Devuan, yes, it is! I got on the Devuan
> > > > mailing list just to escape systemd, and have been pleasantly
> > > > surprised by how Devuan is re-architecting everything.
> > >
> > > Does that meerly reflect how systemd is dearchitecting everything?
> > > Or are there things being rearchitected that aren't systemd issues?
> > >
> > > -- hendrik
> >
> > Well, first of all, understand the only Devuan I've run is Valentines,
> > and I didn't peer too deeply under the hood. My opinions come from
> > things the Devuan Developers say on this list. I've seen a replacement
> > for udev which, if I'm not mistaken, can simply be substituted for udev
> > or eudev. <snip>
>
> As far as I can tell, nothing's available *yet* that can *simply*
> be substituted for (e)udev.

As I understand it, it's necessary to replace udev -- but is it
necessary to replace eudev?

-- hendrik