Re: default udev rules

[Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>]

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.

> 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. :)

Thanks,
Kay