On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:37:05PM +0100, David Zeuthen wrote:
> > I think the dbus people need to work on their "issues" a bit first
> > before we go and start changing udev.  Sound ok?
> > 
> 
> What we're really arguing about is where projects higher in the stack
> than udev (like hal) should place their scripts. I'm saying /etc/udev.d
> and Kay is saying /etc/hotplug.d. FWIW, I can live with both proposals,
> though I think it's conceptually clearer to use /etc/udev.d. But let's
> not dicsuss the merits of these proposals again.

Here is my proposed version. :) 
udevsend is changed to wait until the real udev comes back from
execution by udevd. udevsend now returns the exit code of udev itself.

If udevsend is the first program executed by /sbin/hotplug, by introducing
a folder in /etc/hotplug.d/ in which to look first, or something similar,
all following programs are executed after the device nodes are created.
Which seems very nice, not only for a dbus-script. And we keep _all_
scripts in /etc/hotplug.d/.

Any script, like the dbus-sender can easily get any value from udev's db,
with udevinfo:


  #!/bin/sh
  if [ "$ACTION" = "add" ]; then
          NODE=`udevinfo -q name -p $DEVPATH`
          logger "node=${NODE}"
  fi
  exit 0


The patch for udevsend/udevd is attached. It's based on Chris Friesen's
"ack msg" patch.

thanks,
Kay