Hotplug patches from Debian
ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Fri Jun 4 07:03:41 PDT 2004
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > 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,...
Yeah, but the udev maintainer probably counts as a little more than
> 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.
Good. You're in advance of my understanding, I'm just trying to point
out that sometimes there are different approaches to deciding where the
error is, and how it should be fixed.
> 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.
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
More information about the lfs-dev