on Sunday, October 14, 2007 at 10:56 Bruce Dubbs wrote:
" Actually dialout is a bit dated too. Who uses a modem any more? Not
" anyone I know.
I, being stuck out here in the boonies and for other reasons, still use
dialup. I'm also using vgetty to set up a smart answering machine. (I
know
On 10/14/07, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > Maybe if we sent him the LFS rules, he would include them too. Just a
> > thought.
> >
>
> Been there, done that. The copy of the rules in the udev tree quickly
> gets outdated and misleading.
Yeah, that's to
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Speaking of that, Kay has debian, gentoo, frugalware, redhat, etc.
>
They are not the primary authoritative copies, but are included just for
reference. For example, Debian does not use the included Debian rules.
> Maybe if we sent him the LFS rules, he would include them
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Or use :=, but that's what I was trying to avoid if possible. There are
> a few other differences between our permissions (or groups) and udev's,
> which I was hoping to override by moving 25- to 51- and leaving those
> rules alone.
Using :+ or "last_rule" really shouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> I'd think 0666 would be fine. And if you run any programs that use
>> /dev/tty, you may need 0666 if you run them as a
>> non-tty-group-member -- but I don't know whether any of those
>> exist.
>>
>
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>> ttyNN 620 666 <- diff
>
> These are various different virtual consoles (although tty0 is the same
> as console: the current VC). I'd say we probably have the permissions
> too wide: allowing all users to read from arbitrary other consoles is
> not a good idea. I'd s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> A sysadmin could always override what we have by adding custom
> rules before 50 for desired changes.
If the sysadmin uses :=, that's true. Otherwise their changes get
overridden by the 50- file.
> Perhaps we should create
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> First, we could simply remove the
> last_rule options, e.g. with the following sed:
>
> sed -i 's/, OPTIONS="last_rule"//' 50-udev-default.rules
>
> since nothing that has this option set should have it.
That's one way. Another would be to write the appropriate seds to
c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I've gotten a bit of time this weekend to look at what it would take to
upgrade udev in the development book. I've looked through 25-lfs.rules
and tried to remove as many rules as possible (all the rules that were
duplicated in udev's new 50-udev
