On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:18 PM antlists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> wrote: [...]
> What you're missing, is that this code IS NOT USED. > > The OP wants to delete a load of code from his system precisely to > ELIMINATE vulnerabilities. If the code ain't there, it don't need fixing. > Where do you get that impression from? The OP needs handling keyboard and mouse (as per his first email), and to do that in Linux these days, you basically need udev, because xf86-input-mouse and xf86-input-keyboard are going the way of the dodo. Where does the "ELIMINATE vulnerabilities" come from? The OP is just complaining that to use keyboard and mouse, now he needs udev. My point is that it's not his call; it's the call of the developers of the software that he decided to use. > Yes I take your point, but bloat is bloat, and bloat is a liability. > There is no bloat; the developers *need* to handle the dynamic hardware case *and* the static hardware case. With udev, they handle both; otherwise there would be two code routes: one for static and another for dynamic hardware. THAT would be bloat; using udev solves all the cases and bloat is averted. Is exactly the contrary of what you are saying. Regards. -- Dr. Canek Peláez Valdés Profesor de Carrera Asociado C Departamento de Matemáticas Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
