HAL Starting before udev (WAS: Re: [PATCH] remove usage of g_assert() in blockdev)

[Doug Goldstein]

David Zeuthen wrote:
> Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
>> (Note: Personally, I am not against PAM, but there are a lot of people
>> in Gentoo-land who are very unhappy with the fact that HAL is going to
>> require PolicyKit with its next release, 
> 
> Yes, I've been unclear about that. PolicyKit support will be optional
> but still strongly discouraged.

Glad to hear PolicyKit will be optional.

> 
> which still hasn't even seen a
>> release at all... same with the hal-info.)
> 
> What's the problem with hal-info? It's just organizing files in
> different tarballs; if you just make your 'hal' package include from
> 'hal' and 'hal-info' tarballs it will make zero difference.
> 
>> While I am not against snapshots, It would be the fact that every
>> distro out there will be testing against various different checkouts. 
>> I know that PolicyKit hasn't had any changes at all in quite a while -
>> any chance of a release sometime soon?
> 
> I've just been busy with lots and lots of other work here at Red Hat.
> Will be before Dec 15 because that is when the next HAL release is out,
> for better or worse.

Be really good if we could get a release. Even if it's a 0.2rc release
it would be really good. It would encourage package maintainers to test
something other then a git checkout (since everyone can have a different
checkout). This will hopefully give it more testing an work out
additional issues.

> 
>> I pointed Roy (the baselayout maintainer for Gentoo) to this thread,
>> and he was displeased to say the least.  I am trying to get him to
>> write an email and explain the objections that he has to HAL being
>> started before udev - though, I guess, my wondering is on a couple of
>> different levels.
> 
> Sure, I'm not totally against discussing distro details on this list.
> Perhaps if you can gently nudge one of your other fellow Gentoo
> developers into being more polite perhaps we can avoid a silly flamewar
> for what is basically a misunderstanding.
> 
>> Gentoo we have dependencies in our init scripts, so for example,
>> currently, since HAL doesn't work properly without dbus, it's init
>> script has something along the lines of
>>
>> depends() {
>>     after dbus
>> }
>>
>> So to move HAL before udev for us, requires re-working that.
> 
> You will still be able to start HAL after udev has started even when we
> have done work to put in a feature so HAL / udev can be started in
> tandem. Because, without this it would be difficult to do development
> work on HAL at all.
> 
> Anyway, none of this work is done at all, someone will need to do it
> before it happens.
> 
>      David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> hal mailing list
> hal at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal
> 
> 


-- 
Doug Goldstein <cardoe at gentoo.org>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/hal/attachments/20061117/263a34fa/signature.pgp