On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 17:02, Scott James Remnant <scott@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 16:30 +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: >> > Isn't the ignore_remove already handled by the /lib/udev/devices >> > check? Our /dev/net/tun is in there. >> >> Yeah, because it sets NAME= earlier to place it in the subdirectory. >> The current check only covers devices which have NAME= set. >> > Slightly confused. > > The general ignore_remove rule looks like: > > ACTION=="remove", NAME=="?*", TEST=="/lib/udev/devices/$name", \ > OPTIONS+="ignore_remove" > > Does this mean that this rule does nothing if the name isn't changed? Yes, it was like that until now. > Want to understand where we need the ignore_remove option on rules, or > what is caught by this one. But the last line here, I added after you asked to check, should make it work as expected: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=blob;f=rules/rules.d/50-udev-default.rules;h=d6fdf00bf9a26d6d7b76577b7d11eabdc1d9bebb;hb=a7cb7d79f787614b9c4ade94a7a95144ef46eacd >> > rules/packages/40-isdn.rules: >> > >> > - SUBSYSTEM=="capi", KERNEL=="capi", NAME="capi20", \ >> > - SYMLINK+="isdn/capi20", GROUP="uucp" >> > + SUBSYSTEM=="capi", KERNEL=="capi", NAME="capi20", \ >> > + GROUP="uucp" >> > >> > What uses the /dev/isdn/capi20 symlink? We've never had that, and >> > I've never had any bug reports. >> >> The old ISDN drivers are pretty much dead. But I've seen bugs about >> /dev/capi20, and it seems used: >> http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=en&sa=N&q=/dev/capi20++lang:c&ct=rr&cs_r=lang:c >> > Right, but is /dev/isdn/capi20 used? We don't have that symlink right > now, just /dev/capi20 > > (Nit-picky, I know, but the fewer symlinks and the more fixed software > the better! :p) Ah, I mis-read, didn't catch the subdir link. Let's remove it. :) > [dialout] >> If we can not agree on a default, we can do an option, but we do >> nobody a favor who works on an upstream project and who needs to find >> the differences again. So, I'm all for finding a common solution, For >> me it would not be a problem to use "dialout" if that is what we want. >> Harald? >> > There's enough legacy stuff in Debian and Ubuntu that assumes dialout > (the entire PPP script maintenance, etc.) that I wouldn't want to use > uucp for it -- especially since dialout is a more descriptive group > anyway. Yeah, I like the dialout group better too. SUSE uses that too in some packages. Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
