On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
start_udev is still there because people were jackasses and didn't update initscripts when they updated udev.... or something.. I can't remember the issue, but it was people being foolish and expecting their systems to boot fine.
Is everyone ok with removing it?
A suggestion was made 3 times to simply add a conflict line : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11112#comment31331
This is just a safety against foolish people.
Added locally.
Copied from arch-general (whoops, replied to the wrong list) regarding the readme file we ship with the udev package
Actually, I think we should remove this file. Reloading rules and all that is covered by the man pages and any arch specific documentation should be added to a wiki page so anyone can edit it.
Any issues with removing this? We don't ship custom readme's with any other packages that I know of.
I do ship a custom readme for qingy. At first, I was pointing people to the wiki article I had created. Then, I got somewhat uneasy about having to rely on a document that anyone can edit (qingy is a login manager so it's somewhat critical) even though I was receiving email notification everytime the article was edited. Therefore, I put the wiki info in a readme. In the case of udev, if you want to rely on the wiki, someone should watch the article edits carefully.
Well, here's the point I keep trying to make - nothing in udev, besides a few rules, is arch-specific. The man pages are fully suitable for all commands. Personally, I don't see this document as critical at all. It's just a "oh, here's some more info" that seems to make more sense in a wiki page.