On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:24:56 -0500
Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???> wrote:

> 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

I understood that both vdev and eudev are aftermarket replacements for
udev, and the three can bolt-in replace each other for the purposes of
getting devices initialized, though only udev does us the "favor" of
linking to systemd.

SteveT

Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance