On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 10:37:42AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: > > That doesn't work anymore - "improvement" in udev-186: > > > > equery f udev | grep udevd > > > > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-udevd > > > > > > And as long as our maintainers refuse to use the proper paths this is > > just one of the little things that makes life more exciting for us. > > > > Can we please add some sanity back? > > > > I second this suggestion. >
Folks, I am going to point out a couple of things. First, using /usr/lib/dirname/* for binaries does not break any linux or unix standards. There are many packages that do this. Some use libexec, but this is being changed to lib as I understand it. Second, upstream renaming a binary doesn't constitute breaking any standards. There is no rule or law that says, for example, that upstream udev must call their daemon udevd. What if they decide to change it to device-manager-daemon-for-linux? They can do exactly this if they want, and it is up to us, the packagers, to make sure that things don't break for our distributions. Third, putting daemons outside the path doesn't break any standards. Udev isn't the only package doing this. I believe, postfix, for one, doesn't install its daemons in a directory on the path, but I don't see anyone complaining about this. I don't see anything wrong with moving a deamon out of the path, because afaik in day-to-day operations, you don't run a daemon directly from the command line. it is started or stopped by your init system. So, I ask again. You keep complaining about "insanity". What's the insanity and why should we go to all of the extra effort you want us to go to to avoid it? William
pgpl3X9bOIppi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
