make glib optional

make glib optional

[Marco d'Itri]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 438 bytes --]

I do not know how other distributions feel about this, but I fully
expect to be flamed if I suggested to add 2 MB of glib to the Debian
base system just to support ConsoleKit's ACLs.

The attached patch checks that glib is actually installed before trying
to run udev-acl.
Also, at boot time glib may be missing anyway since it is in /usr/lib/.

IMO udev-acl should be distributed with ConsoleKit, not udev.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[-- Attachment #1.2: test_for_glib --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

--- a/extras/udev-acl/70-acl.rules
+++ b/extras/udev-acl/70-acl.rules
@@ -47,8 +47,16 @@ ENV{ID_SMARTCARD_READER}=="*?", ENV{ACL_
 # joysticks
 SUBSYSTEM=="input", ENV{ID_CLASS}=="joystick", ENV{ACL_MANAGE}="1"
 
+LABEL="acl_apply"
+
+ENV{ACL_MANAGE}!="?*", GOTO="acl_end"
+
+# Glib is not declared as a package dependency, so check that it is actually
+# installed before running udev-acl.
+TEST!="/usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0", GOTO="acl_end"
+
 # apply ACL for all locally logged in users
-LABEL="acl_apply", ENV{ACL_MANAGE}=="?*", TEST=="/var/run/ConsoleKit/database", \
+TEST=="/var/run/ConsoleKit/database", \
   RUN+="udev-acl --action=$env{ACTION} --device=$env{DEVNAME}"
 
 LABEL="acl_end"

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: make glib optional

[Kay Sievers]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 05:36, Marco d'Itri<md@linux.it> wrote:
> I do not know how other distributions feel about this, but I fully
> expect to be flamed if I suggested to add 2 MB of glib to the Debian
> base system just to support ConsoleKit's ACLs.
>
> The attached patch checks that glib is actually installed before trying
> to run udev-acl.

It's not only about udev-acl. We don't do auto-checks. Just disable
the extras explicitly with the existing switch if you want that.

Kay

Re: make glib optional

[Marco d'Itri]

On Aug 22, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:

> It's not only about udev-acl. We don't do auto-checks. Just disable
So far it is only about udev-acl.

> the extras explicitly with the existing switch if you want that.
I do not want to disable it since it is useful on desktop systems which
have ConsoleKit installed, this is not the point.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Re: make glib optional

[Kay Sievers]

On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 14:02, Marco d'Itri<md@linux.it> wrote:
> On Aug 22, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:
>
>> It's not only about udev-acl. We don't do auto-checks. Just disable
> So far it is only about udev-acl.

It's more.

>> the extras explicitly with the existing switch if you want that.
> I do not want to disable it since it is useful on desktop systems which
> have ConsoleKit installed, this is not the point.

These systems need GUdev too.

Kay

Re: make glib optional

[Lennart Poettering]

On Sat, 22.08.09 05:36, Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) wrote:

> I do not know how other distributions feel about this, but I fully
> expect to be flamed if I suggested to add 2 MB of glib to the Debian
> base system just to support ConsoleKit's ACLs.

This patch is incredibly ugly, and broken. The most obvious issue is
for example that on Fedora glib is in /lib, and on multilib machines it is
even in /lib64.

If you dislike glib that much then I'd suggest splitting off udev-acl
and the rules files into a seperate package and then have ckit depend
on it. But this explicit check you suggested is just failure.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

Re: make glib optional

[Marco d'Itri]

On Aug 23, Lennart Poettering <lennart@poettering.net> wrote:

> This patch is incredibly ugly, and broken. The most obvious issue is
> for example that on Fedora glib is in /lib, and on multilib machines it is
> even in /lib64.
It does not pretend to be universal, it was just a proof of concept for
the initial packaging. I already have a version which uses ldd to find
out the library name.

> If you dislike glib that much then I'd suggest splitting off udev-acl
> and the rules files into a seperate package and then have ckit depend
> on it. But this explicit check you suggested is just failure.
The point is not disliking glib, but disliking gratuitously inflating
the base system of 2 MB when it can easily be avoided.
Debian officially supports much more than desktop/server systems, and
many of them have no use for ConsoleKit. Even popularity-contest (whose
statistics are biased against smaller/embedded systems) shows that while
udev is almost universal, glib is not installed on 15% of the sample:

http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=udev+libglib2.0-0+module-init-tools&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1

I considered generating another binary package just for udev-acl, but it
seemed overkill for an 8 KB program. I still think it would be simpler
to just make it part of ConsoleKit since it has no use without it.

-- 
ciao,
Marco