Re: [gentoo-dev] Global Systemd USE Flag

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1729 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]