From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott James Remnant Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:07:54 +0000 Subject: Re: default udev rules Message-Id: <1218391674.15703.4.camel@wing-commander> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-lPrkn3unmRF5Zy2QUTLn" List-Id: References: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> In-Reply-To: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org --=-lPrkn3unmRF5Zy2QUTLn Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. I'm also entirely unconvinced about putting rules in /lib instead of /etc Scott --=20 Scott James Remnant scott@canonical.com --=-lPrkn3unmRF5Zy2QUTLn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkifLnYACgkQSnQiFMl4yK6WbACggXRk3ZX98JwnrfN9doOlKk7E CgkAn0ATI93qkFdXZuZRyA9ALBLJgw+M =Pw6s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-lPrkn3unmRF5Zy2QUTLn--