[Libosinfo] [PATCH] Ditch udev rule

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 06:40:44PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 05:22:23PM +0200, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >> From: "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeeshanak at gnome.org>
> >>
> >> New udev/blkid expose more ISO9660 properties
> >
> > I think by 'new' here, you mean unreleased versions of these. Given that
> > libosinfo releases end up as stable updates in released distros (this is
> > the case in fedora at least), I think it's premature to remove the rule
> > altogether. It seems to already be disabled be default unless --with-udev
> > is used. Maybe we can add a warning that this is deprecated when using
> > util-linux vXX and systemd vYY and keep the rule for now? We could also
> > potentially add another switch --with-deprecated-udev rule switch to make
> > sure distros notice this is going away. Another way would be a udev version
> > check, and error out with new udev and --with-udev.
> >
> > All in all, I think just removing it is very premature, especially as there
> > are users of this rule (boxes). I'm all for documented it's deprecated one
> > way or another.
> 
> As I said in the other mail, I share your concern but not as deeply.
> Once systemd/util-linux are released, we can merge this.

And break Boxes through stable updates in released distros that choose to
update lo latest libosinfo?

> There will be
> a week or two in between systemd release and libosinfo release.
> Knowing that some distros missed the 'enable-udev' option (at least in
> the beginning), I don't think renaming the option would grab attention
> from disto packagers.

It really depends, not installing a file that is listed in a .spec %files
section will cause a package build failure on distros using RPM, which is a
sure way of grabbing the packager attention.
Anyway, I've made other suggestions in my email,

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libosinfo/attachments/20130218/dc1689c5/attachment.sig>