[arch-dev-public] Risky business: udev upgrade

Eric Belanger belanger at ASTRO.UMontreal.CA
Sat Sep 6 17:50:44 EDT 2008

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Eric Belanger
> <belanger at astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at 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.

I understand that part. BTW, I might even get rid of the readme in qingy 
as I believe I came up with it because qingy doesn't have man pages, only info 
pages that were previously removed from the package.

As to the udev readme, I'm fine about removing it.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list