From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R5Dcg-0007nQ-Cb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:25:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB08B21C212; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:24:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.alltele.net (m1.alltele.net [85.30.0.4]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C935D21C0FB for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 09:23:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([87.227.57.71]) by smtp.alltele.net (IceWarp 10.3.2) with ESMTP id BSP83243 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:23:43 +0200 Message-ID: <4E75B89F.3040106@coolmail.se> Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:23:43 +0200 From: pk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.20) Gecko/20110901 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.12 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT rant] udev + /usr References: <20110912150248.GB3599@acm.acm> <1728923.nQPHW4UTlG@eve> <1495175.Z7uWjMfsve@eve> <20110918010055.410f2ef4@rohan.example.com> <20110918093702.67c22cf1@rohan.example.com> In-Reply-To: <20110918093702.67c22cf1@rohan.example.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.77 required=7.00 tests=LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.56,RATWARE_RCVD_BONUS_SPC=1.00,MR_NOT_ATTRIBUTED_IP=0.20,NO_RDNS2=0.01,MR_DIFF_MID=1.00 version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (1.1) on smtp.alltele.net X-CTCH: RefID="str=0001.0A0B0208.4E75B8A0.0019,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0"; Spam="Unknown"; VOD="Unknown" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 900b701264cdbd29e7f7f08161a4858f On 2011-09-18 09:37, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Other systems may start to use it if it proves itself useful. Lucky for > us, it doesn't obsolete anything else, just adds functionality to what > is already there. Although, one thing which I find very annoying is that the things that depend on it starts dbus-launch/daemon no matter if I don't want to run it or not (it's not running acc. to rc-update show but ps -ef shows both dbus-launch and dbus-daemon running). I'm using Xfce4 and have Audacious installed which depends on dbus-glib, which of course depends on dbus itself. No other packages uses it (USE= -dbus). Xfce4 and Audacious hasn't used dbus before a certain version (at least it has not been mandatory) and I've been using them for years (haven't had the time to look for alternatives yet). In general I have a problem with packages that pulls in *something* which in turn depends on *something else* which in turn... overlapping functionality etc. It's quite troublesome to keep, for instance, gconf out of my system (masked by me to detect any "upgrades" that tries to pull it in)... In my "world" software (in general) should not become an "obstacle"; it is just a tool to accomplish whatever you want it to do. Ideally the OS (and whatever interfaces the user) shouldn't consume _any_ resources at all (yes, I'm well aware that it's not possible). Resource usage should at least be kept to a minimum, otherwise I have to buy new faster hardware for each "upgrade" (be it for security, for functionality etc.) and if I liked that I could just go with Windows. My whole complaint about this udev business is that we're "ballooning" out of control, IMO, becoming the "monster" that, I assume, most of us wanted to avoid. PS. My animosity towards dbus is "historical"; I did use it years ago (together with gnome, gconf etc.) which caused me nothing but trouble. I've avoided that crap ever since. I do agree that the idea _behind_ dbus seems sensible but I'm not so sure about the implementation. Best regards Peter K