richard lucassen wrote on 23/08/16 05:38:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:17:11 +1000
> Ralph Ronnquist <ralph.ronnquist@???> wrote:
>
>>> And with "freedom of choice" in mind: indeed, it would be nice if
>>> eudev would be available anyway, whether vdev will be continued or
>>> not.
>>
>> As far as I could tell, vdev is so almost ready it'd be sad to turn
>> sideways, and as it stands, I think I'd like to invest some of my TV
>> time towards pushing it these final few metres. Though I'm not sure
>> what the due process would be; I'm rather new to this arena. Perhaps
>> someone can drop me a line of advice on that.
>
> I'm not against vdev, not al all, but what if the kernel changes and
> vdev has to be adapted? Who's going to do that job?
>
> What is happening now is that we're going to package an orphaned
> project. I don't think that is a good idea...

I have the luxury of having no background here, and I don't mind
particularly which way it goes. But I very much would like to see those
official Devuan installation iso-s without systemd-udev (and without
netinstall) being available; so much, I'd let go of some of my quality
time with the TV ads, if it can be a help.

I've learnt enough about vdev to be able to envision its path from here
to being in the package set, with merely the two hurdles of a) sorting
out the initram building step of the installation procedure, and b)
preparing adequate man pages and descriptions. Thus, it primarily needs
a package maintainer rather than upstream developer right now. The
effort seems to be in the order of 5-10 man days, which on an 8h/w input
would be 5-10 weeks.

I don't know the state of an eudev option; I guess it wouldn't be
unsystemd/devian-eudev.

I suppose there's also someone making the choice of which of these
options would be the default option used in an installation.

Ralph.