On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg(a)jklm.no> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is really f***ing stupid of upstream.
>> Why are they doing this
>> outside of simply wanting to break everything?
> What is breaking?
Everything I outlined below? Restarting a daemon, which shouldn't
involve having to restart my computer to do so?
>> I'm not a fan of this
>> as we are making upgrades way too fragile,
> How? We always require udev, initscripts and mkinitcpio to be in sync,
> running udev should not be affected.
Throw the filesystem package into that bucket too. What I meant to say
is we have at times had this dependency happen, but it seems like
every single upgrade as of late as absolutely required it. This was
never the case a year ago. I realize I'm coming across as a old,
resistant to change, pesky thorn in the side here, but we're doing
things that are beginning to clash mightily with the Arch way here.
>> not to mention moving what
>> is very clearly a *binary* into a non-binary path, which is totally
> There are plenty of binaries in libexec (and there are plenty of
> non-binaries in bin), I don't see the problem.
So let me make sure I understand here since the upstream commit wasn't
linked- upstream moved it to libexec, which we normally move into to
/usr/lib, but this particular binary is moving to /lib?
>> I know I've done `killall udevd && udevd --daemon` before to
>> get the new version running; sounds like this is not going to work at
>> all anymore.
> That does not sound like a good idea, you'll at least lose events.
Am I the only one that does this? Because the handy-dandy, still on my
path `udevadm` command definitely doesn't have any sort of documented
'restart' function for those of us that don't like to reboot our
installs once a week.
Are you sure about losing events? I thought the kernel cues them up if
udevd isn't running. Maybe I need to add a `udevadm --exit` or
something else to my incantation, I don't know.
>> I would honestly pester upstream and have them justify the color of
>> their hat this week;
> Unless you can come up with some real problems caused by this, I think
> that would be a waste of time. Even if they did not explain their
> reasoning very well this time, I'm pretty sure they have some, and
> won't revert just because some random people say "I don't like it".
>> -1 from me on this whole change, upstream decision
>> or not.
> -1 on what? What exactly are you proposing?
At the very least we should symlink this to the former location until
there is a udevadm that actually covers all of the use cases. Real
problem #1- how do I restart this? #2 without having the path
Re: upower, udisks, and polkit running out of libexec: I don't think
this is seen as an advantage by many around here. At least I see it as
a negative; why are we making things harder on the user to have
control of their system?
I also think having to hardcode *any* path to a binary (user-usable or
not, WE still have to use it) like this is a real issue; what happens
when the Kool-Aid color of the week moves it again? We continue to