[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Does anything require /proc/bus/usb?

Enrico Scholz on 07/17/2009 12:42 PM wrote:
> 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.

Should we have kept HAL then? Keep using HAL forever?

This type of mindset works until there is a better solution. There are
better solutions to usbfs today. Most distros use the newer alternative.
You ignored my initial comment on this and seem to want to be ignorant
of such a fact.

> 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.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]