Re: usb.ids

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Zackary Deems wrote:
> Well, all of the files I've seen are in the exact same format and order.. and 
> look as though they were based on the same file, so it wouldn't be that 
> difficult to just diff-patch em together.. but it would be much cleaner if 
> this was done upstream.
>
> greeneg wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005, Zackary Deems wrote:
>> 
>>> Just curious .. is there any reason to include multiple usb.ids files? 
>>> Right now hwdata supplies one,
>>> kdebase supplies another, and usbutils potentially supplies another, 
>>> though it appears to be essentially the same as what's provided by hwdata 
>>> (hwdata's version is just missing all of the declarations at the end)
>>> 
>>> I guess the question is.. shouldn't they all be coming from the same 
>>> place? Looking at the diffs of the 3 files, there were some devices in the 
>>> one provided by kdebase which were not in hwdata's, some with different 
>>> names, and many in hwdata's which didn't exist in kdebase's.  That just 
>>> seems to BEG for problems.
>> 
>> 
>> Agreed. I've been mulling over this for a while now. KDE, USB for Linux, 
>> and almost every other hw based project is shipping it OWN id sets. This is 
>> VERY detrimental to desktop Linux as a whole since this is makes the hw 
>> support across the various distros very inconsistent which only confuses 
>> users. I'd prefer to have it be a synced file between all of the major 
>> players of Linux. So, this means some thing that likely should be done a t 
>> the freedesktop.org level so that KDE, GNOME, usbutils, coldplug, hotplug, 
>> kudzu, harddrake, etc. are consistemt.


Much agreed.