should service providers like hal and udev have own scripting engines and script folders???

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Dennis Heuer <dh at triple-media.com> wrote:
>  Hal should provide just a passive
>  daemon (and probably one reference tool, if control is wished over
>  the development of this feature). Instead, hal tries to have-it-all
>  under it's own roof and manage-it-all the black-box way. This is
>  backwards-thinking! Hal presents itself as THE future tool but keeps
>  old, conservative strategies in the back. Your arguments remind me to
>  distributors but not to free source.

Your description is closer to GConf which is a runtime configuration
storage rather than HAL which is a hardware abstraction layer. And the
abstraction layer means "no other tool needs to probe my hardware
directly any more." It's not "every other tool should probe hardware
and tell me about the results."

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki
PLD Linux Distribution