Re: new release of udev?

[md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1322 bytes --]

On May 22, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> wrote:

> Well, I personaly prefer to put _all_ my custom rules in _one_ file.
> Your solution solves only _your_ problem, which _is_ a great argument.
Looks like different people have different problems...

> > The rules.d/ directory file names. For the debian package I'm documenting
> > a policy like "all default permissions are set before 030_*" and "RUN
> > rules must be set from z40_* onward" (the actual values will change).
> > If the order of rules is important, then this needs to be documented to
> > allow users and package maintainers to choose the right file names.
> Well, sounds like a pretty complicated requirement to solve a simple problem.
This is something needed for all proposed schemes, none of them is
order-indepented.

> Anyway, I will do the "final assignments". Just ignore it if you don't
> like it. :)
> I see no problem to clear a value list if "=" is used instead of '+='.
> The parser already supports this, I wanted to do this somtimes anyway.
> 
> I will _not_ add any more OPTIONS for individual keys like the "last_run_rule",
> stuff. That belongs to the key operation itself not in the OPTIONS.
OK. I can live with this just as well as long as you can add support for
+= and the revised =.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]