On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> ("---" = upstream, "+++" = LFS)
> > # sysfs is populated after the event is sent
> > -ACTION=="add", DEVPATH=="/devices/*", ENV{PHYSDEVBUS}=="?*",
> > WAIT_FOR_SYSFS="bus"
> > +ACTION=="add", DEVPATH=="/devices/*", SUBSYSTEMS=="?*",
> > WAIT_FOR_SYSFS="bus"
> >
> Upstream updated their rule.
> > -KERNEL=="ram*|loop*|fd*|nbd*|dm-*", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> > +KERNEL=="ram*|loop*|fd*|nbd*", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> >
> Upstream change requested by me but not propagated to LFS
> > -KERNEL=="hd*[0-9]", ATTRS{removable}=="1", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> > +KERNEL=="hd*[0-9]", ATTRS{../removable}=="1", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> >
> Looks like a conversion error on LFS end: the "removable" attribute
> applies to the whole disk (or maybe even to the CF card which appears as
> a controller), but not partitions. However, the LFS form should also work.
> >
> > -KERNEL=="sd*[!0-9]|sr*|st*", ATTRS{ieee1394_id}=="*",
> > ENV{ID_SERIAL}="$attr{ieee1394_id}", ENV{ID_BUS}="ieee1394"
> > +KERNEL=="sd*[!0-9]|sr*|st*", ATTRS{ieee1394_id}=="?*",
> > ENV{ID_SERIAL}="$attr{ieee1394_id}", ENV{ID_BUS}="ieee1394"
> >
> Same. "*" matches any value, "?*" matches any non-empty value.
So if "*" is bogus the proper action would be to submit it upstream so
all udev users get the fix, right? (And if it isn't bogus, upstream will
explain why and a wrong fix won't be made - not that I think that's the
case for this one)
> > -KERNEL=="*[!0-9]", ATTR{removable}=="1", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> > +KERNEL=="*[!0-9]", ATTRS{removable}=="1", GOTO="persistent_storage_end"
> >
> This rule matches whole-disk devices, although there is indeed some
> inconsistency in ATTR vs ATTRS upstream.
> > -ENV{ID_FS_USAGE}=="filesystem|other|crypto", ENV{ID_FS_UUID}=="?*",
> > SYMLINK+="disk/by-uuid/$env{ID_FS_UUID}"
> > +ENV{ID_FS_USAGE}=="filesystem|other", ENV{ID_FS_UUID}=="?*",
> > SYMLINK+="disk/by-uuid/$env{ID_FS_UUID}"
> >
> Upstream updated their rule.
>
> It does make sense to use 05-udev-early.rules and
> 60-persistent-storage.rules directly from upstream, unless a bug is
> found there. There is also 60-persistent-input.rules and
> 95-udev-late.rules that should also be used in their upstream form.
:)
> > Only in lfs: *
> >
> That's the meat that should be discussed. Without these rules, nothing
> works.
Exactly. Do any of these have potential to go upstream at some point, so
that other distros can use them, too? I.e. get 25-lfs.rules into a shape
where it'd be a good candidate for a 50-udev-default.rules of the shared
rules.d in the udev tarball?
Thanks for you comments!
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
