From: "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:11:32 -0400
To: Alpine devel <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Can Alpine be built with glibc and mdev?
Message-ID: <20111004021132.GB3367@waltdnes.org>
References: <20111003032414.GA27587@waltdnes.org>
 <20111003081620.31076cc7@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111003081620.31076cc7@ncopa-desktop.nor.wtbts.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:16:20AM +0200, Natanael Copa wrote

> I would say that the main problem you have with a non-udev gentoo is
> that xorg and much desktop stuff depends on libudev to work properly,
> so an Alpine Linux desktop uses udev as well.

  What's wrong with xorg.conf?  And as for "desktops", are you referring
to garbage like KDE-Mail which requires an SQL database?  I'm neutral re
KDE and GNOME... the pox on both their houses.  I don't run desktops, I
run applications.  ICEWM is more than sufficient.

  If somebody wants to load up their machine with a bunch of stuff that
requires initramfs, or a /usr on the same physical drive as /, no
problem for me.  However, if the lead developer for a necessary linux
subsystem tweaks it so that it *DEMANDS* either /initramfs or a sinle
huge C:\ drive *FOR ALL USERS OF ALL DISTROS*, I get unhappy.  That's
why I'm looking for solutions that avoid this.

  Reading the Alpine wiki, I see that "(previous versions of Alpine were
based on Gentoo)".  It would be ironic if I could convince the Gentoo
devs to base the next version of Gentoo on Alpine.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---