On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:54:34PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> [2008.10.28.0103 +0100]: > > All stuff in /lib/udev/rules.d/ is not marked as "config" in the > > package and will be overwritten with a udev update, regardless if the > > content has been edited or not. We moved the "default" rules there > > because people edited the files in /etc and wondered why stuff broke > > in weird ways on updates. /etc/udev/rules.d/ is for "user rules" or > > on-the-fly created system specific ones, like persistent net names and > > cdrom rules. In an ideal setup you would be able to do rm -rf > > /etc/udev/rules.d/*, reboot, and start device configuration from > > scratch. > > > > Debian didn't catch up the last months, they use an older version of > > udev, and have always had thier very own idea of rules, that didn't > > match the udev default. > > Debian is nearing a release, we have other things to worry about. > > But to clarify Kay's statement: > yes, we cannot follow the udev default if we accept that users might > want to edit udev rules, even if they risk breaking stuff. We very > specifically discourage the administrator to write to anywhere but > /usr/local and /etc for good reasons. Thus, the rules have to go to > /etc/udev. Rules written by the adminstrator have to go to /etc/udev, but system default rules certainly not. And IMHO it is plain wrong when Debian maintainers think they know better than the rest of the world. (And yes, I'm a debian user myself and also a package maintainer). Cheers, Bernd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
