On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 16:16 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Robert Noland <rnol...@2hip.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 15:24 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Alan Coopersmith > >> <alan.coopersm...@sun.com> wrote: > >> > Colin Guthrie wrote: > >> >> 'Twas brillig, and Kevin Stange at 12/05/09 18:23 did gyre and gimble: > >> >>> So you're saying this HAL method is widely (or narrowly, but by the > >> >>> right people) disliked? Using Gentoo it seems to be encouraged, and > >> >>> I've seen indications other distros (like Ubuntu) have picked up the > >> >>> technique as well. > >> >> > >> >> HAL will eventually be phased out in favour of getting more direct > >> >> information from udev. I'm not sure how that will impact the Xorg side > >> >> of things but i'd imagine the end solution will be in some way related > >> >> to udev. (this is just a guess tho) > >> > > >> > And for non-Linux systems? HAL is OS-agnostic, udev seems very Linux > >> > specific. > >> > >> Well, there's DeviceKit, but I don't think anyone has any plans for > >> DeviceKit-input or DeviceKit-graphics. I'd personally like to see an > >> abstraction layer rather than putting one into Xorg. > > > > You don't consider HAL an reasonable abstraction layer? > > Not when its creators are trying to get rid of it.
Well, I think that our gnome folks are planning to support DeviceKit as it's replacement. If we are going to support dynamic device detection, then I think the most reasonable approach is to support an OS independent or at least cross platform API. robert. > -- > Dan -- Robert Noland <rnol...@2hip.net> 2Hip Networks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg