Re: default udev rules

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2562 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:27 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:21 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:54 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> > 
> > > > Setting any group names, and thus any group-writable permissions; our
> > > > rules have these split out into a separate file which is added later.
> > > 
> > > That makes no difference, assigning perms works any time.
> > > 
> > But assigning groups doesn't.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
Last time I tried it, I had screenfuls of errors.

> > As you're well aware, we run udev in the initramfs, where any attempt to
> > look up a group name will simply end in an error.
> 
> Copy over /etc/groups and done! And who cares about groups in initramfs,
> we fall back to root then, and done!
> 
Can't just copy over groups, we'd also have to copy over all of the
nsswitch configuration, maybe start an LDAP server, etc.

It's just far too much when it's just as simple to set the group names
in a separate udev rule.

> I'm still looking forward to the facts. Thanks!
> 
Frankly Kay, your attitude is incredibly hostile today.

You'd like us to use a set of udev rules in the tarball which are based
on the SuSE and RedHat ones - that's fine, I fully appreciate that
getting some harmony between the distributions would be nice.

But you seem unwilling to appreciate that in some cases, they don't work
for other people - or cause new problems.

And we already have rules that *do* work for us, and that *aren't*
causing us any problems.


We have concerns, and you're telling us that they are petty.

You're also telling us that *we* have to do the work to use your rules,
and have the fight with you to get your rules changed where we need to.
Your attitude while doing this is hostile, this is hardly putting us in
the mood to have that fight.


Right now, we have working udev packages.  We use a mix of the upstream
rules (for things like persistent storage) and our own.  Every now and
then, I check what needs to be merged back into our own rules.

At some point in the future, I'll sit down and work through the
differences and give you some patches.

I'd like to think you'd apply those patches without question, or maybe
have a little light-hearted discussion about them; but your current mood
suggests to me that you'd simply tell me how wrong my patches are.

So how's that supposed to encourage me to do that work, when I have
plenty of other things to do?

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

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