Hotplug patches from Debian

Alexander E. Patrakov see at the.sig
Fri Jun 4 05:57:39 PDT 2004

Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>>I have examined patches contained in the Debian source package
>>"hotplug_0.0.20040329-8". Note that we use hotplug-20040401. Results:
>>SUMMARY: I have to add two more hotplug patches to the patches projects
>>and probably add them and the "overcurrent" patch to the book. Also we
>>need to decide what to do with network interface hotplug. Together with
>>our custom initscript, there will be 8 (eight!) LFS-related changes to
>>this package. It's probably too much for a single package, isn't it?
>>Even OpenOffice has less patches!
>  The big question has to be "are debian doing the right things here ?".
> I don't use hotplug, or udev, but I remember seeing posts every few
> weeks on l-k related to one of these two packages where the problems are
> debian-specific.
>  My understanding, at least for the udev side, was that Greg K-H was
> using gentoo on one of his boxes and was mostly happy with the gentoo
> implementation of it.  Apologies if I've confused unrelated issues.

If someone is happy, that means nothing. Someone is even happy with 
Windows, despite all shareware crap, artificial limitations, pirated CDs 
with non-working cracks, mail worms,...

My hotplug patches currently in the book are created by fixing the 
problems I encountered, without any reference to Debian. I am not happy 
with unpatched hotplug, and I can point to problems. And I _do_ 
understand what Debian patches accepted by me do.

As for udev, it is probably not buggy by itself. At least I found 
nothing (but that means nothing). It just changes the way of thinking 
and requires some rewriting of bootscripts (most affected: ALSA).

> [ mostly snipped ]
>>050_net.agent_ifupdown: debian specific network management with
>>ifupdown. We have to do something similar sooner or later.
>  The debian boot configuration management has to be the least-common way
> of doing things, in my opinion.  I'd be very reluctant to follow their
> lead in anything to do with bootscripts.  (not generally anti-debian, I
> like a lot of what they do, but some of it is over the top).

The problem is that for every network device found, hotplug logs a 
message: "How do I bring interfaces up on this distro?" We must either 
teach hotplug to bring interfaces up on LFS or declare that we don't 
support that.

Alexander E. Patrakov
To get my address: echo '0!42!+/6 at 5-3.535.25' | tr [!-:] [a-z] | tr n .

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list