Re: default udev rules

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

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:00 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:50 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:36 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > 
> > > We have concerns, and you're telling us that they are petty.
> > 
> > I didn't do, sorry if you could understand it like this. Earlier in this
> > thread, Marco wrote:
> >   " Not going to happen, because:
> > - I consider my rules much more readable and elegant than yours"
> > 
> That's trivial to fix by giving you a patch that adds comments ;)
> 
> When/if/etc. we move over, I'll certainly end up doing that.
> 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I just _asked_ for getting a set of rules we all use, nothing else.
> > 
> > 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.

Oh, I expected you have a list of things. If that is the only real
problem, I'm sure we can solve that pretty easy. If split-out
permissions have more advantage than just initramfs, we can certainly do
that without a lot of discussion.

For the initramfs case, this could be solved much easier by fixing the
possible current error log, and expect it just to fall back to "root",
or ship a "static system groups file", which the current users do. In
almost all cases, we need to run udev before we have network, so
nsswitch will not really matter, and the few needed basic group names
should be locally provided.

> Your response was "Wrong".
> 
> Sorry, but this is an actual problem for me, no matter how hard you wish
> it wasn't ;)

Ok. :)

Kay