On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dan McGee <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Tom Gundersen <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Tom Gundersen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I don't think we should add hacks to our packages to allow things that >>> are not supported by upstream. The proper solution to this would be to >>> file a feature request against udevadm, and in the meantime keep some >>> script that does what you want (if it can be done). > Agreed- can you point me to the udev bug tracker so I can file said request?
They don't have one. Any bugs go to the ML: <[email protected]>. >> If it turns out that restarting udevd is indeed the correct thing to >> do on upgrade, then we should just do that in the install script, >> which of course would be easy to keep in sync with whatever path udevd >> uses. > Whoa. I might concede the rest of my argument, but we NEVER EVER EVER > touch running programs on an Arch system. Ever. Ok, as long as it works, that's fine by me. -t
