2012/8/2 Kay Sievers <[email protected]>: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Peeters Simon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Since systemd and udev are one project now it might be an idea to be >> able to control both daemons with one tool (systemctl) > > We also have journalctl, loginctl, ... > > systemctl is about managing services, and udev is very tightly > integrated, but it's still more a service itself than at the level of > controlling services. > >> also, since i don't like the way the arguments to udevadm work (very >> unclear about what is a commando and what an option), > > The first word is the 'verb', everything else are options to that > verb. It's not always obvious, but I also think it's not "very > unclear".
to me it seems to go wrong here, becouse f.ex udevadm info needs an argument but --help does not help in knowing what arguments you need, ... (just having a verb that needs another "action" which is a '--' option is not that clear to me, especially if the --help does not tel you about it) > Most of them are not useful today, like the daemon operations: set, > stop-exec, start-exec. And they should really make clear that they > operate at the running daemon only and nowhere else. Calling things > with generic words like 'set', which in fact does very specific and > exotic things, makes not too much sense, I guess. > > device-id-of-file is useless today. > > builtin is really just a test, and nothing else, and that should also > be made very clear with the command. It's in no way a general-purpose > tool to call from something else than a human. > > query and db really belong together. > > ... > >> and maybe we can add some way to know the difference between a device >> name and a sys-path ( maybe by forcing the later to begin with /sys ) >> and drop the 'path=' and 'name=' in query and attribute-walk > > That works already in recent versions. > >> of course for compatibility the udevadm command has to stay around for >> a while, but maybe we can fold it into systemctl with a symlink (like >> we doe for poweroff, reboot,...) > > I don't think we are in the "for a while" department here. I don't > think we could remove that anytime soon. > >> any sugestions/comments are welcome, i am willing to code this if it is >> wanted. > > I'm not really convinced that this really makes things better than > they are now. If we would do anything like that, we would probably > throw away 2/3rd of the udevadm stuff and just get a few "systemctl > device" options. Mapping 1:1, the same stuff udev already pretty > sufficiently does, to systemctl does not really seem to justify the > duplication and effort. i see your point and completely agree on the "throw away 2/3rd of the udevadm stuff" part, i just did not know which parts were deprecated/useless. (for what i care i only need trigger and settle) thanks _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
