Hi Frank, On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 09:28:00AM +0200, Frank Blendinger wrote: > On Thu 2009-04-16 20:34, H. Langos <henrik-gnu...@prak.org> proclaimed: > > Thanks for the information. Do you know if changing from "udevinfo" to > > "udevadm info" will be completely compatible? I.e. is "udevadm info" already > > available when "udevinfo" is ? > > > > Otherwise I'd have to add a check for old systems and that path in the code > > would grow obsolete after a while... > > Having no personal experience with either udevinfo or udevadm, I > searched around the web a little, and came to the conclusion that it > should be pretty safe to change from udevinfo to udevadm. > > I found entries in many bug tracking systems about this deprecation > warning and all have been fixed by replacing udevinfo. > > This commit in the docs of udev finally convinced me that it is the > "right thing"[tm] to do: > http://tinyurl.com/ch2ne9
The unification of udev has been going on for a while now: 2007-11-08 Kay Sievers udevadm: merge all udev tools into a single binary However I did not find the "official" record of the decision to deprecate it. But even Debian has a newer Version than that, so I guess we can safely make that switch in the next release. I applied the patch to CVS earlier today. What bothers me, is the fact that "udevinfo" was a tool that a normal user would find in his $PATH while "udevadm" most probably will not be in his $PATH. As I have no clue of autoconf I have hardwired the exec call to run "/sbin/udevadm", hoping that it will always be there. Its good enough for me but if everybody is welcome to submit patches to to the automagic stuff. cheers -henrik _______________________________________________ Bug-gnupod mailing list Bug-gnupod@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupod
