From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kay Sievers Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:48:52 +0000 Subject: Re: default udev rules Message-Id: <1218473332.4448.105.camel@lgn.site> List-Id: References: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> In-Reply-To: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 13:06 -0300, piterpk wrote: > > > You wrote: "The conflation of names and permissions in the default ru= les > > > is a problem for us", so why shouldn't I ask for the actual things th= at > > > cause problems? > > >=20 > > I did that - having group names in the rules doesn't work for us. > >=20 > > Your response was "Wrong". > >=20 > > Sorry, but this is an actual problem for me, no matter how hard you wish > > it wasn't ;) >=20 > Why not split 50-udev-default.rules in 50-udev-default.rules and > 50-udev-permissions.rules? We continue with a default and shared > set of rules and a separated "permissions" file. >=20 > Isn=C2=B4t that good for all? Sure, if that makes people happy. :) It's technically not really needed, or can be easily fixed otherwise if needed, but if that's what people prefer, I don't really mind doing that. Kay