Your message dated Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:53:31 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#543682: /lib/udev/udev-acl: split udev-acl into
separate package?
has caused the Debian Bug report #543682,
regarding /lib/udev/udev-acl: split udev-acl into separate package?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
543682: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=543682
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: udev
Version: 146-1
Severity: wishlist
File: /lib/udev/udev-acl
Hi Marco,
udev-acl depends on libglib2.0, but you (understandibly) tried to avoid to
make the udev package depend on libglib2.0.
I think though, that the current approach, of excluding udev-acl from
dpkg-shlibdeps and adding checks to 70-acl.rules has a few downsides:
* In case of a libglib soname bump, the udev package could be forgotten as
it can't be tracked via the package dependencies. This opens the door
to silent failures.
* 70-acl.rules is unnecessarily executed when either libglib or
consolekit is not installed. This wastes CPU time.
Splitting udev-acl+70-acl.rules into a separate packag would solve those
problems. This package could/would depend on consolekit and in return
udev (and/or consolekit) could recommend that package.
What do you think? Do you see any problems with this approach?
Michael
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (300, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.30.5
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages udev depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.27 Debian configuration management sy
ii libc6 2.9-25 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libselinux1 2.0.85-2 SELinux shared libraries
ii libusb-0.1-4 2:0.1.12-13 userspace USB programming library
ii lsb-base 3.2-23 Linux Standard Base 3.2 init scrip
ii util-linux 2.16-3 Miscellaneous system utilities
udev recommends no packages.
udev suggests no packages.
-- debconf information excluded
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Aug 26, Michael Biebl <[email protected]> wrote:
> * In case of a libglib soname bump, the udev package could be forgotten as
> it can't be tracked via the package dependencies. This opens the door
> to silent failures.
I already wrote a script which automatically finds the correct library
name, so in the worst case this would be fixed at the next upload.
> * 70-acl.rules is unnecessarily executed when either libglib or
> consolekit is not installed. This wastes CPU time.
I considered this, but most rules only do matches on environment
variables and the others read sysfs attributes which will have already
been accessed anyway. In one case usb_id is run, but it would probably
have already been run anyway and the results are cached.
> What do you think? Do you see any problems with this approach?
I object to creating a new package for an 8 kB program.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
