Should systemd also be removed from buildInputs when systemdSupport is disabled?

Should systemd also be removed from buildInputs when systemdSupport is disabled?

Yes thank you; I didn't notice that because I have to .override { systemd=null; } Edit:

(final: prev: { systemdMinimal = prev.eudev; systemd = prev.eudev; udev = prev.eudev; })

due to there being a few packages (like emacs) that still don't respect systemdSupport.

Notice that udev is also systemd under the hood, better check if that matters.

Notice that udev is also systemd under the hood, better check if that matters.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting about that. Such a footgun. Why can't we just call udev udev anymore...

Notice that udev is also systemd under the hood, better check if that matters.

Fortunately it does not matter in this case.

Ping

Resolved merge conflict.

Notice that udev is also systemd under the hood, better check if that matters.

Ah yes, I keep forgetting about that. Such a footgun. Why can't we just call udev udev anymore...

because udev was merged in to systemd in 2012

because udev was merged in to systemd in 2012

There are at least two non-systemd packages that provide udev implementations. One of them had udev as "merged into" it too!

We really ought to have a top-level udev which defaults to systemd. Or if it's a branding thing call it xdev instead.

We refer to:

• both gcc and clang as stdenv.cc
• both glibc and musl as libc
• both openjdk and semeru 😕 and temurin 😵 as jdk
• both binutils and somedarwinthing as bintools
• both npth and gnupth as pth
• both bash and busybox as stdenv.shell

Calling it udev is fine. Selecting different implementations conditionally is being implemented: #210276

Selecting different implementations conditionally is being implemented: #210276

Hooray!