From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "piterpk" <piterpk@terra.com.br>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:06:56 +0000
Subject: Re: default udev rules
Message-Id: <K5G23K$B3C7D63EA013BB293E60FD6977DADC5A@multidominios>
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
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

> > 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 wish
> it wasn't ;)

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.

Isn=B4t that good for all?

Piter PUNK