Hi! On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: >> Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti: >>>> On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: >>>>> What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to >>>>> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother the user with >>>>> updating these files. Thus it will reduce the number of bugs >>>>> triggered by forgotten config-file updates. >>>>> >>>>> If user needs home-brewn rules he is requested to add own files, >>>>> and not use the already existing ones. >>>> >>>> Only problem I see: What to do with people having custom >>>> modifications inside the default rules-files? >>> >>> Can they add /etc/udev/rules.d back to CONFIG_PROTECT in make.conf? >> >> No, that wouldn't work. However they could add '-/etc/udev/rules.d' to >> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or add individual files to CONFIG_PROTECT. > > either solution sucks > > the question is, should people be modifying the default rules ? is there > something in the default rules file that they cant accomplish in a sep rules > file ? if so, then the dir cant be masked ...
I find the persisten-net-generator.rules particularly annoying (for various reasons including, but not limited to system images and system cloning). So I have an empty file of that name and happily nuke whatever comes along with udev updates. I could of course unmask that file if it were to be masked in the future. Still, this reeks of layers upon layers of customization to me. I'd prefer a more elegant solution - although know of none. The classic approach would be a USE flag to toggle installation of the shipped udev files - which wouldn't work for me, as I only have gripes about *one* of them. There probably simply isn't a simple, elegant solution that is a) not wrong and b) works for just about everybody. Regards, Tobias -- In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
