From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kay Sievers Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:00:06 +0000 Subject: Re: default udev rules Message-Id: <1218474006.4448.109.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 17:53 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: >=20 > > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 13:06 -0300, piterpk wrote: > > > > > You wrote: "The conflation of names and permissions in the defaul= t rules > > > > > is a problem for us", so why shouldn't I ask for the actual thing= s 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= 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? > >=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 :) Sure, but how would we handle the bugs we create by renaming: /sys/class/input/mouse0/ to /sys/class/input/input!mouse0/ Add another file with a suggested name and perms to sysfs? :) Kay