udev and the 'hotplug' package - Debian

This is a discussion on udev and the 'hotplug' package - Debian ; Here is the second question Nowadays (testing/sid) package 'hotplug' is also provided by 'udev'. However, they seem to be distinct packages excluding each other. So it seems to be possible to have hotplug instead of udev ? Am i right ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: udev and the 'hotplug' package

  1. udev and the 'hotplug' package


    Here is the second question

    Nowadays (testing/sid) package 'hotplug' is also provided by 'udev'.
    However, they seem to be distinct packages excluding each other.
    So it seems to be possible to have hotplug instead of udev ?
    Am i right this is a provision for older (2.4) kernels, and would be completely
    pointless with a 2.6 kernel and udev already working ?

    I think i still puzzle about some confusion within the vivid kernel transition process.
    I remember it was possible (and even recommendet, in the beginning) to have both
    packages installed altogether, and purging 'hotplug' somewhere later, left some
    artefacts in /etc/hotplug which i deleted manually, according to the docs.

    I can see other packages drop files in /etc/hotplug, like libgphoto or libsane,
    but they also add udev rules which seem to provide the same functionality.
    (I don't know what's the 'blacklist.d' directory for, though, and if udev has that
    feature too.)

    I also notice that /etc/hotplug is created only by these (secondary) packages,
    dropping their hooks in, without them the folder would not exist at all since
    there's no 'hotplug' packages installed (anymore).

    AIUI this kind of circumstance is just to allow to run older kernels as well as new
    ones, in the same environment ? (And how long should this be continued ?)
    Or did i just miss some other important point ?

    Regards,

    mare


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: udev and the 'hotplug' package

    marlin9@gmx.ch wrote:
    > Nowadays (testing/sid) package 'hotplug' is also provided by 'udev'.
    > However, they seem to be distinct packages excluding each other.


    As far as I know, since udev 0.079-080+1 (not sure which version is in
    testing/etc) hotplug is obsoleted and should be purged. See
    /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian.gz and
    /usr/share/doc/udev/changelog.Debian.gz

    Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    --
    ''`. Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy.
    : :' : Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- Lars Wirzenius
    `. `' Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
    `- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: udev and the 'hotplug' package



    The /usr/share/doc/udev/changelog.Debian.gz has (bottom up):

    Makefile: remove dev.d/ hotplug.d/ from install target

    o correct detection of hotplug.d/ udevsend loop

    o handle renamed network interfaces properly if we manage hotplug.d/

    o handle /etc/hotplug.d/ only if the event comes from udevd

    o don't call the hotplug scripts with a test run

    o handle whole hotplug event with udevd/udev

    .....


    It's the existence of /etc/hotplug which confuses me.
    In testing/unstable, libsane has installed a hook in /etc/hotplug.d,
    and also in /etc/hotplug/blacklist.d, while libgphoto has a file in
    /etc/hotplug/usb ... it's my best idea now that if all packages would
    consider placing their hooks into /etc/udev to be sufficient, then
    these folders in /etc wouldn't be necessary anymore and could
    be deleted ... am i right ? But maybe there are icky implications.








    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: udev and the 'hotplug' package

    Please do not Cc: me, as I am subscribed to the mailing list, and it is
    against the Debian Mailing Lists Code of Conduct.

    marlin9@gmx.ch wrote:
    > The /usr/share/doc/udev/changelog.Debian.gz has (bottom up):


    No, you have to read the entry for the the udev version I mentioned.

    udev (0.079-080+1) experimental; urgency=low

    * 080 prerelease.
    + Fixes typos in udev(8). (Closes: #345107)
    * Fixed raid-devfs.sh for the busybox cat. (Closes: #343262)
    * Fixed udevsynthesize to deal with sysfs files with embedded spaces.
    (Closes: #344821)
    * Raised the dependency on libselinux1-dev to 1.28-1, which provides
    the matchpathcon_* functions.
    * permissions.rules: added an usb_device rule for iRiver music players.
    * Added vio.agent to the initramfs.
    * Added a note to README.Debian about hotplug removal. (Closes: #345123)

    -- Marco d'Itri Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:30:58 +0100

    Last statement is the one I was pointing you to.

    >From /usr/share/doc/udev/README.Debian.gz:


    udevd also manages the hotplug events and if needed dispatches them to
    other programs using RUN rules, as a replacement of the old /sbin/hotplug.
    The hotplug package is not needed anymore and is disabled when udev is
    installed, so it should be removed.

    > It's the existence of /etc/hotplug which confuses me.


    Easy, hotplug is not in its own package anymore, it is now included with
    udev, or replaced with udev.

    > In testing/unstable, libsane has installed a hook in /etc/hotplug.d,
    > and also in /etc/hotplug/blacklist.d, while libgphoto has a file in
    > /etc/hotplug/usb ... it's my best idea now that if all packages would
    > consider placing their hooks into /etc/udev to be sufficient, then
    > these folders in /etc wouldn't be necessary anymore and could
    > be deleted ... am i right ? But maybe there are icky implications.


    If you are using udev >= 0.079-080+1 (check with 'dpkg -l udev'), you should
    purge hotplug. I see that the udev version in testing is 0.093-1 so yes, you
    sholud.

    This mailing list is probably a poor place to ask these questions, I
    suggest you ask the maintainer himself, Marco D'Itri.


    --
    ''`. Policy is your friend. Trust the Policy.
    : :' : Love the Policy. Obey the Policy. -- Lars Wirzenius
    `. `' Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
    `- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: udev and the 'hotplug' package



    ok, NEWS.Debian.gz:

    The hotplug package has been disabled and should be manually purged.

    This makes the following configuration files obsolete:
    + /etc/hotplug/*.rc and *.agent: the old hotplug files are not used
    anymore. udev rules may be used to selectively disable coldplugging.
    + /etc/hotplug/usb/*.usermap: must be replaced by udev rules.
    + /etc/hotplug/blacklist*: should be replaced by modprobe configuration
    directives (but now /etc/hotplug/blacklist.d/ will be processed by
    modprobe).

    What means 'should' here, in the last case ?
    I came clear about my question is, why is there still /etc/hotplug when
    hotplugging gets mainly configured in /etc/udev... is this just something
    in transition or will it be a longterm institution.

    - Is modprobe still using that or not ? Let's see...

    module-init-tools (3.2-pre9-1) unstable; urgency=medium

    * New upstream release.
    * Removed the out of date French man pages from the source package.
    * Added *temporary* support for /etc/hotplug/blacklist.d/.

    Ah...hmpf.

    So maybe it's just a slow transition....i wonder who will do the cleanup this time.






    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-laptop-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread