Following up to what T.J. said...

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:15 PM, T.J. Duchene <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:

>
> > I think the fact that I pointed out clearly shows that there is very good
> > technical reason to exclude udev, unless you are willing to be the
> maintainer
> > of udev outside systemd source tree in Devuan.
>
> [T.J. ] Please understand that I very much respect your position, and I
> agree with you that a "put up or shut up" attitude can be warranted in many
> instances. However, I do not believe that this is one of them. The
> shortest and most reasonable route to release a stable 1.0 of Devuan is to
> use udev for the present. THAT in and of itself trumps your concerns in my
> opinion. I will admit that I find Jude's proposal intriguing - but it is
> hardly ready for use. Eudev might make a good replacement, but udev is
> still the best candidate in terms of people using it if you follow the
> principle that "eyes make bugs shallow".
>

I thought it was already settled and decided by the VUA that Devuan Jessie
will use udev. I agree with this stance, for the same reason as T.J.
points out--udev is production-ready, whereas vdev is not. It's the
pragmatic thing to do--I only have a handful of hours per week to work on
vdev, so it makes no sense to hold up the release waiting for it.

However, I think the plan is to offer vdev as a udev alternative in at
least ascii, so users who want to try it out will be able to do so with
minimal effort.

Thanks,
Jude