Hi! On Mon, 2011-05-23 at 09:44:04 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Package: edac-utils > Version: 0.16-1 > User: [email protected] > Usertags: libsysfs-deprecation
> Some years ago libsysfs (source package: sysfsutils) was written as an > abstraction layer for accessing /sys/. However, this turned out to be > a historical error and evolutionary dead end: It does not actually > abstract anything (it's just as specific to the Linux kernel and a > particular version thereof as /sys itself), and just adds unnecessary > complexity, RAM overhead, and bugs. Thus its development has ceased > years ago, in favor of programs just using /sys as it is. I have to disagree with the above. It abstracts the access to /sys in a more natural form than directly having to do so. Development is also still going, and upstream has recently released a new version merging all Debian patches plus other cleanup and fixes sent by me and others. > In fact, most applications probably don't want to access /sys at all, > but use libudev [1] or gudev [2] instead. These provide a better API > for device enumeration, properties, and callbacks for hardware > changes. If this project would be better suited with some other library, then sure go ahead, but please take into account that as the current sysfsutils maintainer in Debian, I consider the library supported and definitely not obsolete, so if you'd like you keep using it, please feel free to do so (and to close this report :). > This package is one of the few which still use the old libsysfs. Can > you please check with upstream to prepare a migration away from > libsysfs to using plain /sys or libudev? I hope that we can drop the > old libsysfs entirely for wheezy. I have no plans for this. On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 08:57:36 -0700, Mark A. Grondona wrote: > It is on the TODO list to remove the dependency on libsysfs going > forward. It is just a matter of time. Edac-utils has gotten very little > development time over the past few years. > > Going forward there is a push to rearchitect edac core[1] and so I think > when that makes it upstream, there should be a complete rewrite of > edac-utils or a replacement of something providing similar functionality > (command line tool and library for monitoring tools) > > So does it still make sense to do the work of removing libsysfs from > edac-utils, or should we work on a new utility? See above, if you think another library would suit the project better, then sure, otherwise please feel free to keep relying on the libsysfs library. Thanks, Guillem
