Hi, Matthias Andree wrote: > http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/halfaq.html#q2
I'll put that into libburn docs. Johannes Meixner's comment quoted by Matthias > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438867#c23 > "Why the hell is this HAL stuff always all the time changing > arbitrarily ..." I can only join in with his lament. Since i hear about hald it is ever changing. My very convenient killing of particular hald-addon-storage processes does not work for several users of my programs. They simply see no such processes. Only the failures. The mess begins already with the project docs which naturally assume that everybody is using a Mac-Windows-style computer which by accident is based on Linux. If HAL shall be a central system component then it must have a stable C API and a stable model of operations. Another group of developers to blame are those who began to depend on hald without first insisting in said model and API. I understand why a central device manager is appealing. I would like to join in. But not under these technical conditions, and actually not so enthusiastically with a project that appears quite naive. Systemwide device management should not depend on anything else than the core system. It is a bit like with CD burning: Actually a task for the operating system, not for user applications. For some reason, the Linux kernel code has a large hole of exactly the shape of a sequential burn facility. So we small people from userland have our peculiar SCSI playground :)) Have a nice day :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
