On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:52 PM, MSal <msal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:48:14PM +0100, Joakim Hernberg wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:33:23 +0300 >> MSal <msal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > 70-uaccess.rules is not a backup file and AFAIK any modifications will >> > be overwritten in the next update. >> >> I have no /etc/udev/rules.d/70-uaccess.rules on my system, i do have >> a /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/70-uaccess.rules though. I think creating >> the /etc/udev/rules.d/70-uaccess.rules to /dev/null symlink will >> override the standard rule and will not be overwritten by upgrading the >> udev package. >> > > If /etc/udev/rules.d/70-uaccess.rules would be applied on top of > /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/70-uaccess.rules , that would have been great. As > one can try to revese the undesired rule and still incorporate all > upgrades. But cancelling all the rules is a no go for me as I don't want > to be running an almost unique setup just because udev/systemd/loginctl > didn't think of group permissions. > > If systemd developers thought of supporting ACLs based on GIDs at least, > this would have been a no issue. Just to be clear, this isn't something the systemd developers came up with. ConsoleKit was responsible applying the same ACLs for local sessions before. It allows user-switching to work as expected by removing permissions when the session isn't active.
