On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:48 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 13:06 -0300, piterpk wrote: > > > > You wrote: "The conflation of names and permissions in the default rules > > > > is a problem for us", so why shouldn't I ask for the actual things that > > > > cause problems? > > > > > > > I did that - having group names in the rules doesn't work for us. > > > > > > Your response was "Wrong". > > > > > > Sorry, but this is an actual problem for me, no matter how hard you wish > > > it wasn't ;) > > > > Why not split 50-udev-default.rules in 50-udev-default.rules and > > 50-udev-permissions.rules? We continue with a default and shared > > set of rules and a separated "permissions" file. > > > > Isn´t that good for all? > > Sure, if that makes people happy. :) > > It's technically not really needed, or can be easily fixed otherwise if > needed, but if that's what people prefer, I don't really mind doing > that. > If we fix the kernel so that we never need NAME=, we wouldn't need the two files after all :) Scott -- Scott James Remnant scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
