Does the eudev udevadm work with the systemd udevd?

@NickCao to the best of my knowledge, yes; it aims to be independent of the init system while maintaining compatibility. Perhaps we should find/add some NixOS tests for this.
At the very least, using ${pkgs.eudev}/bin/udevadm resolves to a file that exists. :)

@NickCao to the best of my knowledge, yes; it aims to be independent of the init system while maintaining compatibility. Perhaps we should find/add some NixOS tests for this. At the very least, using ${pkgs.eudev}/bin/udevadm resolves to a file that exists. :)

Still it feels strange that some udevadms are from systemd while others are from eudev, how about just use systemd, is the impact on closure size that big?

cc @NixOS/systemd

Also I believe the ${config.systemd.package}/bin/udevadm is uncontroversial, we can get that in first.

We can use systemdMinimal to minimise the closure size impact. I thought eudev might be a better fit for packages (rather than modules) to keep them init-system independent.

We can use systemdMinimal to minimise the closure size impact.

Maybe not #264163

And that PR suggests:

We replace systemdMinimal with: systemd, if systemd commands or udevadm is needed (bluez) or when systemd is already in the closure (dbus)

So simply systemd is the choice?

@NickCao excellent point. On closer look, I discovered that all instances where I initially used eudev, already had systemd as a dependency.

@ofborg test hardened

@ofborg test stratis

@ofborg test os-prober

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 268718 run on x86_64-linux 1