On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:36:43 +0200, Jaromil wrote in message
<20160530113643.GB32479@reflex>:

> On Sun, 29 May 2016, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> > > we'd love to have a vdev package, but maintainance of it in
> > > Devuan is not yet assigned. please note that vdev is made to run
> > > also in parallel with udev and it should not disturb its
> > > functioning, so testing should be fairly easy.
> >
> > ..eerie. Means systemd-udev can subvert vdev.
>
> why does it means that? I can't see any reason

..this far I'm only aware of political, military, monetary etc
power/might reasons why these zealots would want to subvert us,
but I dunno enough on the tech details on how, when and where
they would do that to us.

> why systemd-udev can
> subvert vdev. I'd be surprised to say the least.

..then you are too damned naïve. BTDT, still bleeding.

> I wrote that vdev is engineered to not clash with udev.
>
> > ..is there a non-systemd udev out there anywhere?
>
> yes... this has been extensively covered in docs and messages.

..I should have said "packaged into .debs ready for user tests?",
and I need a new email server, I constantly hear of bounces, I'm
still deep in post-Groklaw litigation.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.