DJ Lucas wrote:
> They are already there by default, except for the 3 extras that we copy
> in. So, if we change the copy commands for the three extras from the
> udev tarball, are we as close to agreement as possible? LFS provided
> rules still live in /etc/udev/rules.d.
>
>
Oops! ;-) Ima
Em Monday 13 October 2008 18:30:56 Gilles Espinasse escreveu:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Ude
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
> /lib/udev/rules.d. If we need to make any customisations to those, that
> aren't suitable for upstream consumption, then we should put those in
> /etc/udev/rules.d. That, in itself, will act as
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> Place of rules is not only a matter of taste between /etc and /lib
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-hotplug&m=121828444204300&w=2
>
> If you place everything on /etc, there is no more a priority at one place
> for custom changes.
Note that this only applies if you override a
- Original Message -
From: "Valter Douglas Lisbôa Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Udev Rules
> > > > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > > >> I'd prefer
Em Monday 13 October 2008 14:52:53 Gilles Espinasse escreveu:
> Selon Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > >> I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules
> > >> in /lib/udev/rules.d.
> > > Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > > >
Selon Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >> I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
> /lib/udev/rules.d.
> >
> > Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > > I say keep them in /etc.
> >
> > Do we flip a coin? :-)
> >
> > Actually, I
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
>> /lib/udev/rules.d.
>
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> > I say keep them in /etc.
>
> Do we flip a coin? :-)
>
> Actually, I lean towards /lib/udev and I believe DJ and Dan
> do a
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
> /lib/udev/rules.d.
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> I say keep them in /etc.
Do we flip a coin? :-)
Actually, I lean towards /lib/udev and I believe DJ and Dan
do as well. Does this sort of make it a non-un
I'd prefer to follow upstream and put the Udev supplied default rules in
/lib/udev/rules.d. If we need to make any customisations to those, that aren't
suitable for upstream consumption, then we should put those in
/etc/udev/rules.d. That, in itself, will act as a useful example for how our
d
DJ Lucas wrote:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/12895
> Bottom line, it is still left to opinion for now. However, I too am leaning
> towards /lib/udev/rules.d myself for both rule sets. Taken from the README:
>> Default udev rules, which are not supposed to be edited by t
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Randy McMurchy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Sorry...already reopened as I didn't see Bruce's comment about closing
>> it. Closed it again. Well anyway, Dan posted a link to the
>> conversation upstream.
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linu
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Sorry...already reopened as I didn't see Bruce's comment about closing
> it. Closed it again. Well anyway, Dan posted a link to the
> conversation upstream.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/12895
>
> Bottom line, it is still left to opinion for now. H
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There was a ticket opened, and since closed as invalid that
> some Udev rules belong in /lib/udev instead of /etc/udev.
>
> To me, Udev rules are configuration items and belong in
> /etc, but that's just my opinion.
>
> There was a mention (not sure how valid it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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.
Rules dropped. :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNAT
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.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
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]*
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 4. It states in the book that continuation of rules are not allowed with
> a backslash-newline combination. In udev-116's udev_rules_parse.c, it
> looks like backslashes are recognized. The function is parse_file and
> starts at line 657 of the file. Checking git, it appears
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> 1. There is a doc directory that explains each rule file. Is there a
>> reason that we can't just incorporate these .txt files as comments in
>> the rules files themselves?
>
> The comments that cover our rules, we probably could. That wouldn't
> work
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 1. There is a doc directory that explains each rule file. Is there a
> reason that we can't just incorporate these .txt files as comments in
> the rules files themselves?
The comments that cover our rules, we probably could.
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 05:55:24PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov
> wrote:
>
>>> I wasn't sure if the disk was actually on the "ancestor" chain of
>>> the partition, so I left it as-is instead of converting to
>>> ATTRS{removable}.
>>>
>>> It should probably be changed to t
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 05:55:24PM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >I wasn't sure if the disk was actually
> >on the "ancestor" chain of the partition, so I left it as-is instead of
> >converting to ATTRS{removable}.
> >
> >It should probably be changed to the upstream version though.
>
> Te
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 07:24 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What I want to accomplish here is to always be able to grab the latest
> > udev tarball and expect it to work, without having to wait weeks for
> > distro rule maintainers to upd
On 9/22/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I want to accomplish here is to always be able to grab the latest
udev tarball and expect it to work, without having to wait weeks for
distro rule maintainers to update their external rules (and yet have
them slightly outdated) - but if
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
What I want to accomplish here is to always be able to grab the latest
udev tarball and expect it to work, without having to wait weeks for
distro rule maintainers to update their external rules (and yet have
them slightly outdated) - but if that's too optimistic, not dupli
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 17:48 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> >> ("---" = upstream, "+++" = LFS)
> >>
> >>> Only in lfs: *
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's the m
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
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=="
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Mark Rosenstand wrote:
("---" = upstream, "+++" = LFS)
Only in lfs: *
That's the meat that should be discussed. Without these rules, nothing
works.
Exactly. Do any of these have pote
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=="/dev
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
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.
31 matches
Mail list logo
