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

[Eric Belanger]

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.