[Bug 217844] devel/gvfs

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217844

rkoberman at gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |rkoberman at gmail.com

--- Comment #2 from rkoberman at gmail.com ---
Because hald is mostly abandoned by Gnome and the FreeBSD code is really,
really kludged to try to imitate the Linux code when our kernel does not have
the APIs  that the linux code wants. even on the Linux side, it is widely 
considered a really ugly, hackish thing and that is why the Linux devs have
mostly moved on to udev and some other tools (devkit?). FreeBSD seems to favor
the use of devd for "easy" instances and modifying codes to work with it or
using a FreeBSD udev that is more or less a wrapper on devd, that implements
the udev API and not requiring changes to the calling code. I see that the
latest X11 test code implements both and allows you choose which to try.

Porting hald to FreeBSD was an almost heroic effort, but it is still a kludge
and getting rid of it is a very good idea, IMHO. I really can't see anything
but trivial fixes to hald as being worth the effort, but YMMV and patches are
always welcome. Just be ready for some nausea when you look at the hald code.
At least that was my reaction when I first looked at it. Not really awful code
(well, some is) but just a broken first attempt to solve a problem.

I'd also mention that the FreeBSD hald is heavily modified and it is quite
possible that this 0-day is not even relevant to FreeBSD. (No, I am not
volunteering to try to find out.) I am not sure what features will be lost if
hald is removed from gvfs, but I suspect that it will impact me. I'm building
without HAL now to find out.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.