Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Daniel Drake
Robin H. Johnson wrote: Heya, So now this is not a flamewar. Jakub was originally going to complain at me for the upstream usbutils adding support for gzipped usb.ids files, but a group of us (myself, dsd, jakub, leio, steev) had a discussion about it, and came up with a solution that both

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Wulf C. Krueger
Hello Daniel! I don't feel strongly enough to make an objection to your commit, but I think pciutils is doing the right thing, The question is not if some software is doing the right thing or not but if our packages behave like they should for our users. and despite me and Mike putting a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Daniel Drake
Wulf C. Krueger wrote: The question is not if some software is doing the right thing or not but if our packages behave like they should for our users. There is also value in satisfying and not deviating away from upstream, as well as respecting values of upstream decisions (such as offering

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Doug Goldstein
Daniel Drake wrote: Robin H. Johnson wrote: Heya, So now this is not a flamewar. Jakub was originally going to complain at me for the upstream usbutils adding support for gzipped usb.ids files, but a group of us (myself, dsd, jakub, leio, steev) had a discussion about it, and came up with

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Roy Marples
On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 11:40 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote: When HAL evaluated the usage of libpci the following issues were identified: 1) increased memory usage, to the point that HAL was not usable on the OLPC project 2) ABI breakage between patch revisions (i.e. x.y.z and x.y.z+1 were

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Jan Kundrát
Daniel Drake wrote: OK, so having a dynamic libpci is an outstanding requirement for the patch. I will follow up with pciutils upstream about the current state of that. If you had any issues with Martin Mares, I can talk to him as he's my teacher in one course at the university. He looks like

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Daniel Drake
Doug Goldstein wrote: When HAL evaluated the usage of libpci the following issues were identified: 1) increased memory usage, to the point that HAL was not usable on the OLPC project I was only ever aware of concerns that memory usage might be high, but wasn't aware it caused specific

Re: [gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-31 Thread Rémi Cardona
Roy Marples a écrit : Begs the question why does HAL use libpci in the first place. 2 reasons (that I know of) : 1) to make things pretty in lshal 2) to make writing FDI files somewhat less cryptic http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=hal.git;a=blob;f=hald/linux/device.c#l1554 Rémi -- [EMAIL

[gentoo-dev] Resolving HAL vs. pciutils/usbutils

2007-10-30 Thread Robin H. Johnson
Heya, So now this is not a flamewar. Jakub was originally going to complain at me for the upstream usbutils adding support for gzipped usb.ids files, but a group of us (myself, dsd, jakub, leio, steev) had a discussion about it, and came up with a solution that both ends the breakage for direct