DeviceKit-disks renamed to udisks (original) (raw)

Krzysztof Kotlenga pocek at users.sf.net
Sun Dec 6 10:29:41 PST 2009

Tobias Arrskog wrote:

I'm the developer for XBMCs power integration (nearly all dbus related stuff actually). And you can take a look at our code if you wish, the power integration is rather simple since were mostly an application but it's neatly abstracted (i.e. XBMC doesn't know if it's hal, devicekit old, new devicekit and when released upower). So long as they bump the daemon version (which they will) I can understand doing name changes, better now than in a few years when it's standard :)

All these classes should be able to come right out and work outside, I've been meaning to add battery notifications and such to this aswell.

Hi Tobias,

thanks for the info, but I don't think the point here is about whether you can nicely abstract an abstraction layer (you surely can), but whether it's sane to change a well distinguishable, catchy and already well-known, widely introduced to different audiences name. I also liked the message "DeviceKit" name sent - "hey, we're the part of the new *Kit stack, and we're all cool" :)

Now imagine that the future will bring a need for another, not yet foreseen DeviceKit-like daemon. Name it DeviceKit-something and we immediately know what we deal with. Name it "usomething" and it can be anything. Not to mention it's probably quite easy to get a name clash with another u-prefixed project name. Name it differently and you're "out of the family".

I'm sorry for sounding harsh here, but I think Red Hat/Fedora guys have a communication problem. They "talk to a few people" and boom, decision happens, complaining starts, and they don't care :) (beyond the subject of justifying their decision). I mean, sure, it's their software and their right to do whatever pleases them, but come on...

(David, Richard: please don't go mad about me mentioning you here in third person :)

I also don't get how name "closer to udev" is supposed to make something good here. In my view, DeviceKit targets many platforms, not only Linux. Do other platforms use udev? No. Will they? Highly unlikely. So yeah, naming it after udev must be a great idea. They don't even operate on the same level.

So, I probably stepped on some people's toes here. I'll go back to my cave now.

-- A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top posting bad?

More information about the devkit-devel mailing list