From: Christophe F. <te...@gn...> - 2007-04-28 17:37:48
|
Selon Jorg Schuler <Jor...@gm...>: > In essence, if I understand it correctly, the rule files have to go > somewhere and it is deemed appropriate that each library supporting such > a device deliver their version of the files, advertising to all > applications probing through hal that the plugged-in device is an iPod > and is indeed supported by the library. This is what was suggested in that thread, but that's the first time I hear such a suggestion (attaching library names to devices in the hal tree), so I'd rather be sure people hacking on hal related code agree that it's the right thing to do. For example, a libgpod function looking like itdb_hal_device_supported (HalSomething *) might be more elegant. In short, I'm totally unconvinced that installing a hal device file for that purpose is a good idea. Having the hal tree populated with the iPod model name, the iPod capabilities, ... would be really nice otoh. But then, libipoddevice might be a more appropriate place than libgpod to add that since it already have code to gather all this stuff. Christophe |