You are not logged in.

#1 2009-12-04 10:30:28

ArchArael
Member
From: Switzerland
Registered: 2005-06-14
Posts: 485

X.org 1.8 without hal

http://www.x.org/wiki/XorgHAL

What do you think about this? Will be better/worse/same?

Offline

#2 2009-12-04 10:42:30

thepizzaking
Member
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: 2006-03-13
Posts: 45

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

I don't think it will be much different.  Of course any modifications you've made to the HAL policy files will no longer have any affect, but other than that it should work the same.  The current versions of xorg should run fine without HAL already, I've tried it and it works fine mostly.  Last time I tried (about a month ago) the only trouble I had was when GDM started after a boot the list of users was empty and I couldn't log-in, if I then restarted GDM it worked fine.

Offline

#3 2009-12-04 10:47:03

mikesd
Member
From: Australia
Registered: 2008-02-01
Posts: 788
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

I'm not really up on the inner workings of Xorg and hal. I guess it will be one less dependency to need and most people would already run udev.

thepizzaking wrote:

Of course any modifications you've made to the HAL policy files will no longer have any affect, but other than that it should work the same.

I'm not a huge fan of using xml in config files. That's probably one of the reasons I have never touched my fdi files.

Last edited by mikesd (2009-12-04 10:47:25)

Offline

#4 2009-12-04 11:24:55

combuster
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2008-09-30
Posts: 711
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

First, we had to configure xorg.conf for everything.
Next, we had to configure xorg.conf and configure hal fdi policies.
Next, we didn't have to configure xorg.conf at all since xserver 1.6 but had to configure fdi
Next, we don't have to configure anything at all since the switch to devicekit
Now there is this new changes with removing hal and depending on udev

Everytime something changes - something breaks. And some time have to go by for everything to be patched and work correctly. And worst of all - they manage to patch things up just great and then - they change it again.

Well I'm personaly sick and tired of all of this...

Offline

#5 2009-12-04 12:38:05

eldragon
Member
From: Buenos Aires
Registered: 2008-11-18
Posts: 1,028

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

combuster wrote:

First, we had to configure xorg.conf for everything.
Next, we had to configure xorg.conf and configure hal fdi policies.
Next, we didn't have to configure xorg.conf at all since xserver 1.6 but had to configure fdi
Next, we don't have to configure anything at all since the switch to devicekit
Now there is this new changes with removing hal and depending on udev

Everytime something changes - something breaks. And some time have to go by for everything to be patched and work correctly. And worst of all - they manage to patch things up just great and then - they change it again.

Well I'm personaly sick and tired of all of this...

amen to that. there seems to be a lack of sense of direction within xorg.

Offline

#6 2009-12-04 12:55:03

Ranguvar
Member
Registered: 2008-08-12
Posts: 2,540

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

I can't wait for this change...

At the very least, one less daemon running in the background.

Offline

#7 2009-12-04 13:02:21

goran'agar
Member
From: Nothern Italy
Registered: 2009-05-19
Posts: 167

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

There is already in AUR a package for the current xorg 1.7.2 patched to use udev instead of hal. I tried and it seems to work but it looks to me that we'll need to use xorg.conf again unless someone writes some new udev rules for the touchpad, the keyboard layout and so on.


Sony Vaio VPCM13M1E  - Arch Linux - ZFS - Syslinux - XFCE .
Samsung SGS - CM10.1 - Semaphore 2.8.0 .

Offline

#8 2009-12-04 13:17:45

Gen2ly
Member
From: Sevierville, TN
Registered: 2009-03-06
Posts: 1,529
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

Yeah, I read about this on Phoronix and thought, 'What are they doing?' but didn't know that HAL isn't being developed anymore.  So this sucks.


Setting Up a Scripting Environment | Proud donor to wikipedia - link

Offline

#9 2009-12-04 13:42:15

combuster
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2008-09-30
Posts: 711
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

I think I've read somewhere that there will be new configuration files for touchpad etc...  Wait, it was from phoronix too big_smile

Instead of the input device options being stored in HAL FDI files, the X Server will begin supporting a xorg.conf.d directory for handling input driver options. These new files will utilize a new syntax for matching the options with the respective devices. While the X Server will be picking up this directory support, editing the xorg.conf will remain supported and a valid option.

I have to RTFM's all the time smile

Offline

#10 2009-12-04 15:00:09

Svenstaro
Developer
From: Germany
Registered: 2008-11-19
Posts: 375

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

I personally appreciate this change. I hate FDI files, they would always crap out on me.

Offline

#11 2009-12-04 16:19:33

tomd123
Developer
Registered: 2008-08-12
Posts: 565

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

combuster wrote:

First, we had to configure xorg.conf for everything.
Next, we had to configure xorg.conf and configure hal fdi policies.
Next, we didn't have to configure xorg.conf at all since xserver 1.6 but had to configure fdi
Next, we don't have to configure anything at all since the switch to devicekit
Now there is this new changes with removing hal and depending on udev

Everytime something changes - something breaks. And some time have to go by for everything to be patched and work correctly. And worst of all - they manage to patch things up just great and then - they change it again.

Well I'm personaly sick and tired of all of this...

To comment on you first part, ignorepkg exists for a reason, that or switch to a distro that doesn't change that much, like debian smile

Second, I'm a little annoyed by breaking perfectly working software, but I accept it as long as it is progress in some kind of direction. Here, we won't be dependent on hal anymore. So I'm willing to fix some things in the mean time.

Offline

#12 2009-12-04 16:32:25

.:B:.
Forum Fellow
Registered: 2006-11-26
Posts: 5,819

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

Gen2ly wrote:

Yeah, I read about this on Phoronix and thought, 'What are they doing?' but didn't know that HAL isn't being developed anymore.  So this sucks.

HAL was a 'case study' so to say. Devicekit etc. will take its place. So it's not really 'dead' wink.


Got Leenucks? :: Arch: Power in simplicity :: Get Counted! Registered Linux User #392717 :: Blog thingy

Offline

#13 2009-12-04 17:20:06

tomd123
Developer
Registered: 2008-08-12
Posts: 565

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

B wrote:
Gen2ly wrote:

Yeah, I read about this on Phoronix and thought, 'What are they doing?' but didn't know that HAL isn't being developed anymore.  So this sucks.

HAL was a 'case study' so to say. Devicekit etc. will take its place. So it's not really 'dead' wink.

From OP's post:

The currently planned replacements for the above functionality pieces are:

   1. Direct calls to OS-dependent device enumeration libraries (libudev on Linux, libdevinfo on Solaris, etc. - basically whatever HAL called to do this)
   2. Direct calls to OS-dependent device notification libraries (libudev on Linux, libsysevent on Solaris, etc. - basically whatever HAL called to do this)
   3. Input driver delivered files in a new xorg.conf.d directory that use new syntax for matching devices (see patches proposed on xorg-devel)
   4. User edited xorg.conf file.

Neither DeviceKit, nor the udisks/upower/etc. replacements provide any of this functionality for input devices, and the DeviceKit authors have indicated that they do not plan to provide such functionality, suggesting direct use of the OS interfaces such as libudev instead.

It obviously says, DeviceKit won't take its place.

Last edited by tomd123 (2009-12-04 17:20:56)

Offline

#14 2009-12-04 18:18:41

falconindy
Developer
From: New York, USA
Registered: 2009-10-22
Posts: 4,110
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

goran'agar wrote:

There is already in AUR a package for the current xorg 1.7.2 patched to use udev instead of hal. I tried and it seems to work but it looks to me that we'll need to use xorg.conf again unless someone writes some new udev rules for the touchpad, the keyboard layout and so on.

Is there any doc out there regarding how to write these new rules? I've tried this package and my USB kb and mouse don't work, despite being defined in xorg.conf.

Offline

#15 2009-12-04 19:36:44

goran'agar
Member
From: Nothern Italy
Registered: 2009-05-19
Posts: 167

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

falconindy wrote:
goran'agar wrote:

There is already in AUR a package for the current xorg 1.7.2 patched to use udev instead of hal. I tried and it seems to work but it looks to me that we'll need to use xorg.conf again unless someone writes some new udev rules for the touchpad, the keyboard layout and so on.

Is there any doc out there regarding how to write these new rules? I've tried this package and my USB kb and mouse don't work, despite being defined in xorg.conf.

no idea. haven't been able to find any so far.


Sony Vaio VPCM13M1E  - Arch Linux - ZFS - Syslinux - XFCE .
Samsung SGS - CM10.1 - Semaphore 2.8.0 .

Offline

#16 2009-12-04 20:06:19

combuster
Member
From: Serbia
Registered: 2008-09-30
Posts: 711
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

@tomd123

o comment on you first part, ignorepkg exists for a reason, that or switch to a distro that doesn't change that much, like debian

Lol, it doesn't affect me that much (I like working on bleeding edge sw), and I think that this will reflect on all distributions that include xserver 1.8 in their repo's...

Offline

#17 2009-12-04 21:11:34

SpeedVin
Member
From: Poland
Registered: 2009-04-29
Posts: 955

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

For me it's only less work with configuring Xorg Server and Xorg is stable like always and start of Xorg Server is faster smile

Last edited by SpeedVin (2009-12-05 08:18:37)


Shell Scripter | C/C++/Python/Java Coder | ZSH

Offline

#18 2009-12-04 21:14:43

karabaja4
Member
From: Croatia
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 876

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

Besides automounting, what exacly does HAL do?

I tried to compile xorg-server without HAL and DBUS support, and all of my input devices worked fine (my USB optical mouse for example). The only thing I noticed missing was automounting of my DVD/USB drive, which I could do with mount command directly from the shell anyway.

What would I miss without HAL?

Offline

#19 2009-12-04 21:52:33

pogeymanz
Member
Registered: 2008-03-11
Posts: 1,020

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

Does this mean that if someone isn't running HAL right now, that they have no choice but to have this feature built in to Xorg 1.8?

In other words, are we getting less modular? And will there be any long term benefits?

Offline

#20 2009-12-04 22:35:20

R00KIE
Forum Moderator
From: Between a computer and a chair
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 4,734

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

combuster wrote:

I think I've read somewhere that there will be new configuration files for touchpad etc...  Wait, it was from phoronix too big_smile

Instead of the input device options being stored in HAL FDI files, the X Server will begin supporting a xorg.conf.d directory for handling input driver options. These new files will utilize a new syntax for matching the options with the respective devices. While the X Server will be picking up this directory support, editing the xorg.conf will remain supported and a valid option.

I have to RTFM's all the time smile

New syntax ... I bet it will be somewhat similar to what what is used already in udev rules or fdi files ..... still xml, hard to read and understand, same thing, just different flies tongue


R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K

Offline

#21 2009-12-04 22:58:40

goran'agar
Member
From: Nothern Italy
Registered: 2009-05-19
Posts: 167

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

pogeymanz wrote:

Does this mean that if someone isn't running HAL right now, that they have no choice but to have this feature built in to Xorg 1.8?

In other words, are we getting less modular? And will there be any long term benefits?

Maybe I fail to understand what you mean, but I suppose you will always have the option to build your xorg-server without libudev support - you will have to specify and configure your input devices in xorg.conf.

Probably in the extra repository you'll find only the udev-enabled version, but that's what AUR is for tongue


Sony Vaio VPCM13M1E  - Arch Linux - ZFS - Syslinux - XFCE .
Samsung SGS - CM10.1 - Semaphore 2.8.0 .

Offline

#22 2009-12-04 23:04:44

Anikom15
Banned
From: United States
Registered: 2009-04-30
Posts: 836
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

Really, hotplugging should be built in, and everything should be done through Xorg.conf.


Personally, I'd rather be back in Hobbiton.

Offline

#23 2009-12-04 23:51:02

falconindy
Developer
From: New York, USA
Registered: 2009-10-22
Posts: 4,110
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

Woo, fixed. Had to specify "AllowEmptyInput" "False" and switch the keyboard driver to evdev in xorg.conf.

edit: this doesn't give me the ability to get rid of DBUS as well, does it? Since moving from Gnome to DWM, DBUS seems to have taken a bit of a back seat....

Last edited by falconindy (2009-12-05 00:01:46)

Offline

#24 2009-12-04 23:51:30

pogeymanz
Member
Registered: 2008-03-11
Posts: 1,020

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

goran'agar wrote:
pogeymanz wrote:

Does this mean that if someone isn't running HAL right now, that they have no choice but to have this feature built in to Xorg 1.8?

In other words, are we getting less modular? And will there be any long term benefits?

Maybe I fail to understand what you mean, but I suppose you will always have the option to build your xorg-server without libudev support - you will have to specify and configure your input devices in xorg.conf.

Probably in the extra repository you'll find only the udev-enabled version, but that's what AUR is for tongue

Ah, I suppose you are right. It can just be built without the udev stuff enabled. It doesn't matter for me - I always had HAL, I was just wondering for those hardcore/server guys who don't need hotplugging.

Offline

#25 2009-12-05 03:18:47

JohannesSM64
Member
From: Norway
Registered: 2009-10-11
Posts: 623
Website

Re: X.org 1.8 without hal

This is great. HAL configuration is horrible.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB