On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:08 AM, Kay Sievers <kay@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And because a major part of the data the hwdb will carry in the future
> will be the equivalent of udev rules, and should not be shipped by a
> different package, because it it might carry specifics needed for a
> certain functionality, just like the udev rules do today.
>
> If we want to artificially declare the PCI+USB IDs different from the
> rest of the growing hwdb data, and split that into a different package
> and the rest not;
Just because two sets of information have the same primary key does
not necessarily mean they belong even in the same table, let alone the
same database. udev rules and naming databases are rather different
in purpose, development process, required testing, update frequency,
impact of bugs.
> sure, we can do that when things have stabilized,
> but so far I'm not really sure if that will give is a significant
> advantage, considering that updates just can be installed along with
> the default data.
"Things are not stable now, so let's change them, and after they have
stabilized, let's possibly revert the change"? I can't quite see the
rationale for doing things that way.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
