Re: Debian and udev (was: RFC - device names and mdadm with some reference to udev.)

[Bernd Schubert <bs@q-leap.de>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:54:34PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org> [2008.10.28.0103 +0100]:
> > All stuff in /lib/udev/rules.d/ is not marked as "config" in the
> > package and will be overwritten with a udev update, regardless if the
> > content has been edited or not. We moved the "default" rules there
> > because people edited the files in /etc and wondered why stuff broke
> > in weird ways on updates. /etc/udev/rules.d/ is for "user rules" or
> > on-the-fly created system specific ones, like persistent net names and
> > cdrom rules. In an ideal setup you would be able to do rm -rf
> > /etc/udev/rules.d/*, reboot, and start device configuration from
> > scratch.
> > 
> > Debian didn't catch up the last months, they use an older version of
> > udev, and have always had thier very own idea of rules, that didn't
> > match the udev default.
> 
> Debian is nearing a release, we have other things to worry about.
> 
> But to clarify Kay's statement:
> yes, we cannot follow the udev default if we accept that users might
> want to edit udev rules, even if they risk breaking stuff. We very
> specifically discourage the administrator to write to anywhere but
> /usr/local and /etc for good reasons. Thus, the rules have to go to
> /etc/udev.

Rules written by the adminstrator have to go to /etc/udev, but system 
default rules certainly not. And IMHO it is plain wrong when
Debian maintainers think they know better than the rest of the world.
(And yes, I'm a debian user myself and also a package maintainer).

Cheers,
Bernd