Bug#515214: Bug#523960: equivs is surely not the solution to this problem. "Recommends:" is.
Hi,
Just following up to David Nusinow comment (not directed at him but
this seems to be where the main defencive stance on this seems to be):
----
> X.org not only runs on fat workstations but also on embedded device
> where you as less abstraction layers and diskspace used as possible.
> Debian always claims to be "the _universal_ operating system" and it
> should also package X.org to be universal. Debian is not (a desktop
> focussed) Ubuntu.
>
Note that this is the direction that upstream is heading in. The design
is conceptually quite simple. The X server asks the system, in this case
via hal, to enumerate input devices are present and gets them enumerated
back.
----
And for the platforms where hal does not exist? Xorg is not just
available for Linux. I'm all for making it easier for refugee's from
other OS's to get onto the Linux bandwagon, but the moment you start
removing choice from those already on the bandwagon, something is going
seriously wrong.
This is greater than some the Debian 'policy' document, we are stepping
onto point four in Debian's *social* contract. Maybe that's just my
opinion, I read that bit in the social contract as 'choice', others
might read it differently.
The argument regarding "get used to dependencies...it's the way of the
world is", that's fine *when* the functionality (such as PCI scanning)
might have been stripped from Xorg altogether and it simply will not
compile without it. The reality is that the Xorg folk know HAL is not
available on all the platforms Xorg runs on and so it's a compile time
option.
If you can show us all that HAL is available on *all* platforms where
Xorg runs and that the Xorg folk are about to make HAL a dependency[1],
then you probably would get no grief from making Debian match things up
(hell it work have a non-functioning Xorg which is not an option).
Currently though the situation is quite different and it turns out that
even with this automagical detection support compiled in, it can be
disabled at runtime and people can continue to *choose* to use their
handcrafted xorg.conf files.
So why are we forcing people to use stuff that is un-needed? Doing this
would be no different to forcing people to install Java and Flash when
Iceweasel is installed because "hey everyone wants to use YouTube". :-/
Remember, with your position you are also harming the embedded and low
spec'ed machine folk. I do not think people with small amounts of NAND
flash for storage space will appreciate having a lot of unnecessary guff
installed[2].
Debian runs on 11 different architectures, life's not a x86 with 2GB of
RAM. I left that 'other' OS eight years ago exactly for these reasons
as I did not like have the decision making process made by someone else.
If Xorg decide to make HAL an actual dependency, then we will all deal
with that ourselves (probably in the form of a witchhunt and burning
down to xorg-hq)...until then there really is no reason why Debian
should turn to the dark side.
Hell just think about the hammering of the mirrors for all the extra
package downloading you are causing... Some people pay for bandwidth.
I (and it seems others too) can see so many arguments against making HAL
a dependency but only see one in favour of it (and it's not like we are
turning off any functionality in doing this). I think you will find
that the main issue people have is that we think HAL/DBUS (and even what
acpid has turned into) is fundamentally broken[3]. We have chosen to
avoid it as Debian has enabled us to have this choice...that's why we
use Debian.
Cheers
[1] there are already signs that other distros are getting fed up of the
ghastliness that HAL has turned into. What are you going to do
when the world starts getting a 'hard on' for DeviceKit instead?
[2] http://www.embeddedarm.com/products/board-detail.php?product=TS-TPC-7390
ARM + 512MB NAND + LCD screen, and you want HAL on it?
[3] we are too lazy to come up with alternatives, hell this might push
us over the edge
--
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: You will triumph over your enemy.
Reply to: