From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:09:31 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] Towards 2015.05-rc1 In-Reply-To: <55381E27.4020502@mind.be> References: <20150419220053.2c1d5b62@free-electrons.com> <20150419230245.64cf1410@free-electrons.com> <55381E27.4020502@mind.be> Message-ID: <55382A2B.1090108@zacarias.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 04/22/2015 07:18 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: > Since udev rules are IMHO a lot more complicated than mdev rules and you > usually don't need that complexity in embedded systems, I think there really is > a case to be made for avoiding full udev. Of course, it's always possible to > remove the udev start script in a post-build script (which effectively makes > udev dead code), but it is definitely nice to know which packages will work > without udev running. So that's what I would like this libudev stuff to do. > > For example, I have one system that used to be based on mdev. Now we have to > add modem-manager to it, and modem-manager depends on udev. So I've enabled > udev, but now I have to replace the mdev rules with udev rules and I probably > also have to get rid of some of the default udev rules which are not appropriate. There's also usbutils which now requires the udev hwdb and libudev. I expect to see this kind of requirement for other packages in the future, the latest pciutils for example benefits with the same trickery, and though it still works without it i wonder for how long. Regards.