On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:12:03PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > But I guess Red Hat and Suse decide. Debian does what they do, nobody > They are currently providing most of the manpower for developing udev > and the related infrastructure so this is pretty much the practical > effect, yes.
So what, you think this means we don't have any right to object when they
design things wrong?
"We wrote the code, therefore it's correct if we say it is"
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 11:41:41AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > Yes. Any device specific matching should use vid:pid. How about just
> > disabling the /lib/udev/{pci,usb}-db helpers alltogether to avoid ever
> > getting any users of this info in Debian? It will always be too
> > unreliable to be useful anyway, regardless of /usr availability.
> So you believe that the upstream maintainers are incompetent and
> released something which is unreliable by design?
Violating the FHS is incompetent by definition and any resulting design is
unreliable.
But I have faith in udev upstream's capacity to rise above this
demonstration of incompetence.
> > cares about Gentoo, and Ubuntu does what Debian does. No, wait, they
> > don't: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/udev/+bug/372241
> This may become an interesting development, but it is not consistent
> with the behaviour so far of the Canonical employees involved in the
> development of udev.
That bug was reopened as a result of a conversation I had with Martin and
Scott in response to this precise thread. I was hoping Scott would be able
to shed some light on the motivation for this goofy design, but he was just
as much in the dark regarding the reason this was added and wasn't aware of
the FHS problem that had been introduced.
Do you have a reference to a thread where someone upstream has acknowledged
the existence of this FHS bug and proceeded to implement this anyway?
> > Either you follow the FHS or you don't. You seem to argue that most
> > distributions don't and that Debian therefore shouldn't either. That's
> > sad. Please fix the FHS first if you think it should be fixed. Or
> > leave it alone and fix udev instead.
> Actually I am carefully avoiding to argue for either side, and trying
> to provide useful facts instead.
> On your part, you could try to understand them instead of attributing to
> me straw man positions.
I don't see you presenting facts, I see you defending upstream violations of
the FHS. The FHS doesn't stop saying what it says just because Red Hat and
SuSE happen to decide to piss on it. It is *not* "documentation of what
distros do", it is an independent standard.
You most certainly are arguing for a side, and it's not for the side that
you have an obligation to as a Debian developer.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
