Re: default udev rules

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 13:06 -0300, piterpk wrote:
> > > > You wrote: "The conflation of names and permissions in the default rules
> > > > is a problem for us", so why shouldn't I ask for the actual things that
> > > > cause problems?
> > > > 
> > > I did that - having group names in the rules doesn't work for us.
> > > 
> > > Your response was "Wrong".
> > > 
> > > Sorry, but this is an actual problem for me, no matter how hard you wish
> > > it wasn't ;)
> > 
> > Why not split 50-udev-default.rules in 50-udev-default.rules and
> > 50-udev-permissions.rules? We continue with a default and shared
> > set of rules and a separated "permissions" file.
> > 
> > Isn´t that good for all?
> 
> Sure, if that makes people happy. :)
> 
> It's technically not really needed, or can be easily fixed otherwise if
> needed, but if that's what people prefer, I don't really mind doing
> that.
> 
If we fix the kernel so that we never need NAME=, we wouldn't need the
two files after all :)

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

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