<table><tr><td style="">adridg added a comment.
</td><a style="text-decoration: none; padding: 4px 8px; margin: 0 8px 8px; float: right; color: #464C5C; font-weight: bold; border-radius: 3px; background-color: #F7F7F9; background-image: linear-gradient(to bottom,#fff,#f1f0f1); display: inline-block; border: 1px solid rgba(71,87,120,.2);" href="https://phabricator.kde.org/D5778" rel="noreferrer">View Revision</a></tr></table><br /><div><div><p>It's a little more complicated than this:</p>
<ul class="remarkup-list">
<li class="remarkup-list-item">FreeBSD has a port, libudev-devd, which provides the udev API on FreeBSD<ul class="remarkup-list">
<li class="remarkup-list-item">I don't know how extensive the API is that that library provides, and whether the entire udev backend would work with it</li>
</ul></li>
<li class="remarkup-list-item">In packaging, we remove the udev dependency as well as the bits that actually *need* on udev (powerdevilupowerbackend, udevqtclient, and udevqtdevice)</li>
</ul>
<p>So this code is used, downstream, and I don't think it should be removed like this -- perhaps the udev-is-optional stuff should be merged from downstream instead, and/or the udev support on FreeBSD investigated to find out what it can do.</p></div></div><br /><div><strong>REPOSITORY</strong><div><div>R122 Powerdevil</div></div></div><br /><div><strong>REVISION DETAIL</strong><div><a href="https://phabricator.kde.org/D5778" rel="noreferrer">https://phabricator.kde.org/D5778</a></div></div><br /><div><strong>To: </strong>bshah, Plasma, FreeBSD, broulik<br /><strong>Cc: </strong>adridg, plasma-devel, ZrenBot, spstarr, progwolff, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, lukas<br /></div>