On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 08:53:10AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 26 décembre 2011 à 17:08 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > If someone would give even *one* example where something legitimately needed > > by a udev rule could not be moved from /usr to / without breaking interfaces > > or otherwise complicating matters, then that would be worth discussing. > Introducing a udev rule that calls a [D-Bus] service? Do you have a concrete example of how this would be a useful thing to do? So far I haven't seen the need for it. Describing things that you *could* do from udev if /usr could be relied on doesn't explain for why we would *want* to do it that way. Also, doesn't launching a dbus service presuppose that dbus-daemon itself is running? This sounds like we would be making udev depend on socket-based service activation to support this (in order to ensure the system bus is running when udev needs it). I'm skeptical of the robustness of such an approach. For one thing, what if there's disk thrashing at boot time on a slow system that causes the socket-activated dbus-daemon to exceed udev's worker timeout? (Note that for this reason, upstart in Ubuntu exclusively uses the upstart-udev-bridge to represent such long-running triggers as upstart jobs keyed on certain udev events, and *not* as udev rules.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature