On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 21:47 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 19:07 +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 12:21 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > > > > We like to remind everybody, that all distros should work towards a > > > default udev rules set, instead of maintaining their own home-grown > > > version of default rules. We should all unify as far as possible. > > > Red Hat, SUSE and Gentoo are already using the same rules files, with a > > > minimal rules set on top, in a distro specific file. We ask the rest of > > > the universe to join us, and do the same. :) > > > > The conflation of names and permissions in the default rules is a > > problem for us, and why Ubuntu has not adopted them. > > Which names, which perms? Please just list them all, we will try to find > a common solution. > Setting any group names, and thus any group-writable permissions; our rules have these split out into a separate file which is added later. > > I'm also entirely unconvinced about putting rules in /lib instead > > of /etc > > Most udev rules are not config files, not supposed to be edited, and > therefore do not belong into /etc. It's a pretty common, and HAL's model > for fdi files. As we are moving things from HAL to udev, we may have > more things, which are unconvincing until they are used and start to > make sense. :) > I've yet to have it explained to me why udev rules suddenly aren't configuration files. They've been configuration files for years, and we encourage people to edit them. Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
