On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:45 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 11, Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > There is not really a need for a compromise, we asked you to send a
> > patch to add that "elegance", and we will change the default rules
> Tell me what's missing from my rules instead, I will fix it and then you
> will be able to use them. If nothing is missing, then you can replace
> the files right now.
>
> BTW: *I* documented the semantics of the Debian rules files. From
> README.Debian:
>
This is different from Ubuntu's?
00 rules that it is critical to be run first, usually
only WAIT_FOR_SYSFS
20 rules that change the name from the device from the default
(cannot be overriden)
40 rules that set the permissions of device nodes
(can be overriden by later rules)
60 rules that add symlinks to device nodes
(adds to those set in earlier rules)
80 rules that run programs (but do not load modules)
90 rules that load modules
99 rules that it is critical to be run last
Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
