1 |
Daniel Drake wrote: |
2 |
> Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
3 |
>> Heya, |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>> So now this is not a flamewar. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> Jakub was originally going to complain at me for the upstream usbutils |
8 |
>> adding support for gzipped usb.ids files, but a group of us (myself, |
9 |
>> dsd, jakub, leio, steev) had a discussion about it, and came up with a |
10 |
>> solution that both ends the breakage for direct users (HAL and others), |
11 |
>> and provides forward momentum. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> So firstly, what's the real problem? The original complaint came up |
14 |
>> because HAL expected the uncompressed file to exist as pci.ids, and |
15 |
>> wasn't ready to look at pci.ids.gz. While this caused breakage, it was |
16 |
>> only a warning sign that there was a deeper problem. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I don't feel strongly enough to make an objection to your commit, but |
19 |
> I think pciutils is doing the right thing, and despite me and Mike |
20 |
> putting a hours into getting a decent HAL patch together the response |
21 |
> I got was that as upstream they are simply "not interested" (no |
22 |
> technical or logical objections provided), so I don't feel you should |
23 |
> be putting workarounds in pciutils just to make HAL happy. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Daniel |
28 |
Daniel, |
29 |
|
30 |
That's a LOAD of garbage and you know it. You're just straight away |
31 |
making up stuff, essentially lying. You know damn well what the reasons |
32 |
were since they were explained to you on numerous occasions. |
33 |
|
34 |
When HAL evaluated the usage of libpci the following issues were |
35 |
identified: |
36 |
1) increased memory usage, to the point that HAL was not usable on the |
37 |
OLPC project |
38 |
2) ABI breakage between patch revisions (i.e. x.y.z and x.y.z+1 were |
39 |
not ABI compatible) |
40 |
3) no shared library |
41 |
4) the library calls exit() when it encounters an error in parsing it's |
42 |
own pci.ids file which would kill the whole app using it. |
43 |
|
44 |
There might have been more. I don't remember. Refer to ML discussions |
45 |
and refer to IRC logs with me. |
46 |
|
47 |
Now Mike (vapier) rectified #4 several pciutils releases ago by |
48 |
providing a callback function that we could define which would override |
49 |
the default exit() behavior. I still think it's sub-par to have an |
50 |
utility library call exit() by default but whatever. |
51 |
|
52 |
You were told by me and the HAL ML that once #2 and #3 are rectified and |
53 |
if you could provide some basic memory usage information along with your |
54 |
patch (i.e. show #1 isn't true anymore) that we would happily accept |
55 |
your patch. |
56 |
|
57 |
Now #2 and #3 are still not true in the latest release. There is no |
58 |
guarantee by the pciutils maintainers that they will maintain ABI |
59 |
compatibility while keeping the same .so version number. And there is |
60 |
still no shared library built. |
61 |
|
62 |
You addressed #1 on the mailing list with a simple statement, which I |
63 |
will paraphrase. "It doesn't use more memory on my machine". To which |
64 |
Danny K asked if you could provide some basic data behind that and you |
65 |
never did. |
66 |
|
67 |
As a result, 3 out of 4 concerns with your patch and pciutils were never |
68 |
addressed and the issue was dropped on the HAL ML pending more feedback. |
69 |
-- |
70 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |