Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi guys, > > Archaic and I have put our heads together to try and come up with a more > reasonable set of Udev rules. These are based on the following criteria: > > 1) If a device needs packages outside those installed by LFS then don't > include a rule for it. (e.g. audio devices) > 2) If hardware is specific to a non-LFS targeted architecture then don't > include a rule for it (e.g. /dev/dasd - s/390 specific, apparently!) > 3) For other devices, do the absolute minimum necessary to configure the > device node sanely, bearing in mind that *every* device that udev finds > will have a device node created for it albeit with defaults of > NAME="%k", GROUP="root", MODE="0660" > > With that in mind, we'd appreciate feedback on the attached config file > especially if you've tested it "in the field" and found that we broke > something! Errors and omissions expected :)
I'm coming in a little late here, but note that this message generated 27 responses in about three hours today. I can understand the desire to remove rules for non-LFS targeted architectures, but have to disagree with the proposal to remove the entries for audio devices and other BLFS supported devices. I do understand that the issue is user, group, and mode for devices and not creation of the devices themself. However, the proposal as it stands is very cumbersome for BLFS. Several entries in the BLFS book will have to be made in multiple packages for what is a few lines in a rules file that are (the lines) not even discussed in LFS. Examples are printing devices, sound devices, usb, video, and network devices. I strongly urge the criterion number one to read: 1) If a device needs packages outside those installed by LFS or BLFS then don't include a rule for it. BLFS assumes the user has a base LFS system. Don't make a lot of work for us for some exotic minimalism principle. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
