On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:19:10 -0400 Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Mick wrote: > > From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another > > thing that bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that > > causes a problem. Remember hal? How many people complained early > > on about the config files? Lots. I also don't like that a very few > > people or just one person can make a decision like this that will > > have a negative affect on a LOT and I mean a LOT of users. That is > > something that needs to be dealt with. What I would like to see is > > this, a good stable alternative that works well with a proper fix > > and for that to push udev out and render it null. I think that > > would serve the dev right. Listen to the people that use it or > > people will use something else. The mdev package comes to mind > > here. Maybe this will push it to take udevs place. It seems there > > is enough people that opposes this. If a few commercial and paying > > people can help, it may just be the next better thing. > > As I understand it, nothing of udev itself is in /usr, but instead > packages and scripts which plug themselves into udev to be triggered > by various events. > > Perhaps the real solution is to circumvent udev and get those other > packages and scripts to not put hotplug-active files under /usr. That's my understanding too, and I agree with your conclusions. The distros can easily (give enough man-power) deal with this too - they simply have to modify their rpms/debs/pkgs/ebuilds to install specific identified things to / instead of /usr. They *already* do this for packages that natively install to peculiar locations. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
