From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:44:07 +0000 Subject: Re: default udev rules Message-Id: <20080809194407.GA14517@kroah.com> 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 09:30:59PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Aug 09, Greg KH wrote: > > > > - I consider my rules much more readable and elegant than yours > > Why not submit patches to get your versions into the upstream version if > > they are much better? > They are available and up to date in rules/debian/*, nobody ever > expressed any interest in this. It seems they are now :) Why not send patches? > > > - anyway there are differences in the permissions (e.g. uucp vs. dialout) > > Minor things like this should be resolved if possible. > These are not minor things, so at best the common rules would need to > be patched. Like Kay pointed out, there are differences, like this, and that's fine, but permissions on specific nodes are minor things. Consistant names are the real issue here. > > > - the default rules are unusable for Debian since we need to support > > > older kernels (currently and until Xen dom0 will be supported by new > > > kernels or obsoleted by KVM, >= 2.6.18) > > Why would the rules files be dependant on kernel versions? > Workarounds, etc. Such as? thanks, greg k-h