In the last episode (Nov 05), Dima Dorfman said:
> That one can't modify ruleset 0 is documented copiously in the man
> page, and all the examples are preceeded by "devfs ruleset 10" (see
> the first sentence in the EXAMPLES section). Since this doesn't
> appear to be enough, perhaps you (or anyone, for that matter) could
> suggest a better way to communicate this requirement?
I actually completely skipped the description of rulesets in the
manpage because I assumed I would not need them. Sort of like ipfw
sets, which most people don't need, so ipfw assumes set 0. I expected
devfs to provide me with an empty set I could just start adding rules
to. Maybe /sbin/devfs could check which set is active and print an
error message like "Cannot modify ruleset 0" if a user tries to mess
with it? That would let the user know that rulesets are important and
they had better go reread the manpage.
Or alternatively, change that example /dev/speaker rule in the manpage
to "devfs rule apply path speaker mode 666", so that people who only
care about fixing the speaker permissions (like me and apparently
Andrew Lankford) can just stick that command in /etc/rc.local and be
done :)
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
