From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott James Remnant Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:53:33 +0000 Subject: Re: default udev rules Message-Id: <1218473614.14932.37.camel@quest> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-AVnG1ozB9eHiRh0bH7zb" List-Id: References: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> In-Reply-To: <1218277281.31266.32.camel@lgn.site> To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org --=-AVnG1ozB9eHiRh0bH7zb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 13:06 -0300, piterpk wrote: > > > > 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? > > > >=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 w= ish > > > 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? >=20 > Sure, if that makes people happy. :) >=20 > 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. >=20 If we fix the kernel so that we never need NAME=3D, we wouldn't need the two files after all :) Scott --=20 Scott James Remnant scott@canonical.com --=-AVnG1ozB9eHiRh0bH7zb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBIoG6NSnQiFMl4yK4RAtdtAKCk5OEJjvqmGoW3WowYcS4onwJ1SQCeI4Ed +yvPpjzkFFD7J9q1HCQ7rgM= =3m2D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-AVnG1ozB9eHiRh0bH7zb--