Cleaner seperation between user fdi's and system fdi's ?

[David Zeuthen]

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 20:58 +0200, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:36:50PM +0200, Sjoerd Simons wrote:
> >   I quickly looked at the code and it seems trivial to first scan
> >   /usr/share/hal/fdi and then /etc/hal/fdi..
> 
> Patch attached to do this.. Comments ? 
> 

What is the advantage of having it in both /etc and /usr/share?

Not sure; the separation is somewhat already there

        [davidz at davidz ~]$ tree /usr/share/hal/fdi/
        /usr/share/hal/fdi/
        |-- 10generic
        |-- 20freedesktop
        |   |-- 6in1-card-reader.fdi
        |   |-- jetflash-mp3-player.fdi
        |   |-- lexar-media-cf-reader.fdi
        |   |-- lucent-pcmcia-wireless.fdi
        |   `-- sony_dsc.fdi
        |-- 30osvendor
        |-- 40oem
        |-- 50user
        |-- 90defaultpolicy
        |   `-- storage-policy.fdi
        |-- 95userpolicy
        
What about just using symlinks

 /usr/share/hal/fdi/90defaultpolicy -> /etc/hal/system-policy
 /usr/share/hal/fdi/95userpolicy    -> /etc/hal/user-policy

in your Debian package? Note that you probably don't want users to edit
files in /usr/share/hal/fdi/90defaultpolicy as you, as a vendor, want to
update these file for critical and/or security updates [1].

OTOH, I don't expect that piece of code to change a lot so if you patch
the Debian package there's probably not a lot of maintenance
overhead :-).

Cheers,
David

[1] : that's what we do in Fedora and just a few days ago I've changed
the policy to not add entries to /etc/fstab for non-hotpluggable fixed
drives as our ataraid code isn't up to snuff cf. the Debian bug you
forwarded last week.



_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at freedesktop.org
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal