On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 08:39:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Mar 05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, on one hand you say you have no plan to oppose workarounds, but on the > > other hand you clearly oppose such workarounds ? > No, I oppose attempts to require me to maintain them indefinitely in my > own packages. It is still possible to add to other packages the rules > and scripts needed.
Which is why i proposed co-maintainership, so that it would not be *you* who had to maintain those issues you don't want to maintain :) If you propose it is best to maintain a udev-hacky-workaround package to make this possible, then so be it, i am not 100% sure it is the best thing to do though, as it would have to closely mirror udev uploads probably, given the highly volatile nature of udev :) Actually, i have been thinking of a grander plan. The reality is that there is a bunch of stuff out there which is not yet hotplug friendly, two that came to my attention was the sparc sbus stuff and the powermac floppies, but undoubtly they are others. I believe it would be best for all involved if we maintained a list of such cases, and had proper workaround in either udev or a separate package, and then, actively search to get those cases fixed in the kernel, either by doing the development ourself, or by pulling attention to it, and try to get the involved persons to act on this. This would have the benefit of clearly showing the problematic cases, providing a workaround to our users who would not have to care about such crass details, and provide a way to do the real fixes and not mean we have to maintain those workarounds indifinitely. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
