<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 6, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Andrew Bradford wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Can you elaborate as to why systemd isn't desired? Especially if udev<br>is?</span></blockquote></div><br><div>Systemd is a pretty big step right? I don't know much about systemd and have never used it.</div><div><br></div><div>I was following discussion with it in LFS dev mailing lists and there is a Systemd branch, but they are sticking with the more simpler extracted udev</div><div>I was under the impression to install systemd, we'd have to add quite a few more deps in final-system. If we are to keep a minimal system, that might be counterproductive.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, if systemd is great and all that, we need more devs active on the book. Then we'll need to edit cblfs as well for systemd.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't know what all work is required, but I wouldn't look forward to it, right now.</div><div><br></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br></div><div>William Harrington</div></body></html>