Re: default udev rules

[Scott James Remnant <scott@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]

On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 21:47 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:

> On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 19:07 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 12:21 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > 
> > > We like to remind everybody, that all distros should work towards a
> > > default udev rules set, instead of maintaining their own home-grown
> > > version of default rules. We should all unify as far as possible.
> > > Red Hat, SUSE and Gentoo are already using the same rules files, with a
> > > minimal rules set on top, in a distro specific file. We ask the rest of
> > > the universe to join us, and do the same. :)
> > 
> > The conflation of names and permissions in the default rules is a
> > problem for us, and why Ubuntu has not adopted them.
> 
> Which names, which perms? Please just list them all, we will try to find
> a common solution.
> 
Setting any group names, and thus any group-writable permissions; our
rules have these split out into a separate file which is added later.

> > I'm also entirely unconvinced about putting rules in /lib instead
> > of /etc
> 
> Most udev rules are not config files, not supposed to be edited, and
> therefore do not belong into /etc. It's a pretty common, and HAL's model
> for fdi files. As we are moving things from HAL to udev, we may have
> more things, which are unconvincing until they are used and start to
> make sense. :)
> 
I've yet to have it explained to me why udev rules suddenly aren't
configuration files.  They've been configuration files for years, and we
encourage people to edit them.

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]