On 27/03/12 20:09, Robert David wrote: > In debian package system (which I count as good reference) there are > these packages that depend on libudev:
You might also want to look into what uses libudev indirectly, through udev-disks (udisks?) and similar stuff. That list might well be more interesting and indicative. > From the libudev vs libattr function difference, there are ~30 > functions missing, some of them may be easy to implement with just > makro or some easy function. Well - actually libdevattr has never been used yet as a replacement of libudev, so that would be part of the project. It's all about seeing how usable libdevattr is at the moment as a libudev-"clone", and implementing other features that are useful/necessary to run other applications. As I was pointing out, the main effort would probably be porting something like udisks, and providing all the functionality it requires; then seeing whether linux apps are happy about that. > But Alex is right that a lot of missing functions are somehow relevant > to sysfs interaction. It is questionable how much of them need to be > implemented in dragonfly so far. And how much of them are really used. I would presume that for udisks and other "middleware" sysfs is an important component, so yea, odds are that this project would move into a thin sysfs-like implementation, ideally in userland. But this requires a lot more investigation - it might not even be doable in the scope of a gsoc project. HTH, Alex
