[bug#63508] [PATCH v2 4/4] gnu: eudev: Have udevadm look in /etc/udev/rules.d. (Closes: #63508)

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Sonntag, dem 28.05.2023 um 16:23 -0700 schrieb Felix Lechner:
> Hi Liliana,
> 
> Thank you for your kind review! I will push a new version with
> squashed commits you requested shortly.
You mean "submit", right?

> While I am new to Guix, I am not sure that Gexp conversions fall
> under "style changes" in my book. I believe they are considerably
> more complex, and fraught with greater error.
True, but there is room for error in dropping input labels as well.  In
fact, eudev's labels do cause a rebuild, but I decided to push v3 1/3
anyway to get CI ready.

> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 9:19 PM Liliana Marie Prikler
> <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > you may object that this doesn't mention /etc/udev/rules.d and thus
> > could be problematic on foreign distributions, but I argue that you
> > probably shouldn't mess with foreign udev anyway, and if you do
> > that setting EUDEV_RULES_DIRECTORY is appropriate.
> 
> The intent of my patch was not to mention /etc/udev/rules.d
> explicitly, but rather to replace the store folder that holds the
> upstream rules, which we are currently using, with the one Guix
> constructs in order to use rules from other places. That just happens
> to be /etc/udev/rules.d as well.
> 
> On that note, my patch is not suitable for upstream because it
> hardcodes the location to the runtime path in Guix. Other
> distributions may keep them in a different place. The current
> Autoconf setup probably works well for them.
The same reason why your patch wouldn't fly upstream is why it won't
fly in Guix.  We do have to consider foreign distributions as well.

> Either way, udevadm in Guix is currently broken. This patch fixes it
> and should please be accepted. Thanks!
There is more than one way to fix a bug and I argue that the one you
have chosen is not the right one.  Granted, same could be said for my
patch, but you have yet to file a formal complaint.  The closest I can
recall is "the resulting flexibility may not be needed", but here we
are discussing foreign distros storing udev rules in some other
location. 

Cheers