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them slightly outdated) - but if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them slightly outdated) - but if that's too optimistic, not dupli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.
As the udev team is becoming better at providing default rules, I'm
wondering if some of the pain in terms of (as well as errors associated
with) maintaining a complete set of rules externally could be avoided.
Attached is a diff between the LFS 20060920 rules and the rules.d
directory from the ud
12 matches
Mail list logo
