Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Yeah. I sure don't like uucp. It is really an ancient reference. >> The uucp rules do use it though for tty[A-Z]*|pppox*|ircomm*|noz*, >> mwave, and hvc*|hvsi*. > >> We do override tty[BCDEFHILMPRSTUVWX][0-9]* and ircomm[0-9]*, but not >> the others. Perhaps we should add uucp just to catch the things we >> don't override. We also don't handle TTYA[0-9]*. I don't know what >> that would be. I only have ttyS[01234567] on my system. > > The ttyA* rule would be used for ttyACM[0-9]* files, or possibly others. > > But yes, we don't override the others. I wanted to keep everything > mentioned in the file the same -- but since udev modifies the group on > some files that we didn't have in our rules, we would need to either add > the group or override their choice. > > I suspect it'd be easier to just add the group. (And then get rid of > the extra overrides.)
After thinking about it a bit, I think we should go ahead and add rename dialout to uucp (Section 6.6). We have all the other groups covered. Then we can drop some of our rules. >>>> 3. I think the 51- rules should be renamed to 55- to allow users >>>> to place their own rules between the udev default and ours >>>> without modifying either. >>> I can't come up with a reason that they'd have to add anything >>> between the files, basically. Of course I may be missing >>> something. :-) >> It's not a big deal. I think it just gives the user flexibility. > > Plus 55 would give us semi-"even" (or at least mostly-evenly-spaced) > numbers, except where rules are tied closely together (e.g. 61-cdrom > relies on 60-cdrom_id). Hmm; now I'm waffling... > > OK, I've moved it. :-) :) >>>> If continuation lines are indeed allowed, I think we can make our >>>> rules with long lines look better with this feature. We would also >>>> need to change the book. >>> Yes, I'd agree. I may be able to look into it tomorrow, but if you >>> already have a patch put together for these, don't wait for me. >>> ;-) >> No, I don't have anything ready to go. I wanted to discuss it first. >> I do not see a big need to hurry on this, but we ought to make the >> changes while we are thinking about it. > > Probably true -- we don't want to forget. > > As far as using line-continuations in 55-lfs.rules, I think most of the > lines are short enough, except maybe the capi* devices. But if we kill > the override on the "tty[BCDEFHILMPRSTUVWX][0-9]*" devices, that will > leave a lot of extra room for the capi stuff to move over to the left, > so even that won't be as big of a deal. > > Maybe there are longer rules elsewhere (BLFS)? No, I looked at BLFS and the only rules are for alsa and libusb. Both have reasonably short lines. > As far as changing the book, it probably makes the most sense to kill > the whole [note] section that talks about the backslashes, put quotes > back around the here document, and keep the backslash in the generated > file. That is section 7.12. I agree. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
