Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> You want to change something which is not broken and requests that >> I adapt my workflow and spent work into something to retain old >> functionality? > > What about old /dev (pre udev)? It was not broken. Sure, you couldn't > add nice new functionality quickly, but it wasn't broken. Static /dev still exists and works perfectly in servers or embedded devices. Recent udev did not removed features (as you are requesting) and its extras seem to outweight its drawbacks (high boot times). > Should we have kept HAL then? Keep using HAL forever? Dunno; I did and do not use hal on pre FC11 machines. > This type of mindset works until there is a better solution. There > are better solutions to usbfs today. Most distros use the newer > alternative. There is not needed an alternative. usbfs and the udev/sysfs based approach coexist nicely. > You ignored my initial comment on this and seem to want to be ignorant > of such a fact. Which initial comment? That you want to remove a feature to workaround bugs in an application? >> VirtualBox seems to be the issue. Or do you have other examples of >> software which uses crappy heuristics based upon the existence of >> /proc/bus/usb? > > That particular software does not depend on usbfs, but it seems that > VBox will be a scape goat for your whining until I convince you > otherwise. If you had read the thread beforehand you probably would not > have replied. > > Please read the whole thread. Sorry; you must be subscribed to another maillist than me. Here, no article in this thread justifies removal of usbfs with anything else than the broken VirtualBox. Enrico -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
