1 |
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:37:42AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: |
2 |
> > That doesn't work anymore - "improvement" in udev-186: |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > equery f udev | grep udevd |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is |
10 |
> > just one of the little things that makes life more exciting for us. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Can we please add some sanity back? |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I second this suggestion. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
Folks, I am going to point out a couple of things. |
19 |
|
20 |
First, using /usr/lib/dirname/* for binaries does not break any linux or |
21 |
unix standards. There are many packages that do this. Some use libexec, |
22 |
but this is being changed to lib as I understand it. |
23 |
|
24 |
Second, upstream renaming a binary doesn't constitute breaking any |
25 |
standards. There is no rule or law that says, for example, that upstream |
26 |
udev must call their daemon udevd. What if they decide to change it to |
27 |
device-manager-daemon-for-linux? They can do exactly this if they want, |
28 |
and it is up to us, the packagers, to make sure that things don't break |
29 |
for our distributions. |
30 |
|
31 |
Third, putting daemons outside the path doesn't break any standards. Udev |
32 |
isn't the only package doing this. I believe, postfix, for one, doesn't |
33 |
install its daemons in a directory on the path, but I don't see anyone |
34 |
complaining about this. |
35 |
|
36 |
I don't see anything wrong with moving a deamon out of the path, because |
37 |
afaik in day-to-day operations, you don't run a daemon directly from the |
38 |
command line. it is started or stopped by your init system. |
39 |
|
40 |
So, I ask again. You keep complaining about "insanity". What's the |
41 |
insanity and why should we go to all of the extra effort you want us to |
42 |
go to to avoid it? |
43 |
|
44 |
William |