udev rules changes

Bryan Kadzban bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net
Mon Oct 29 17:50:52 PDT 2007

Hash: RIPEMD160

Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Yeah.  I sure don't like uucp.  It is really an ancient reference.
> The uucp rules do use it though for tty[A-Z]*|pppox*|ircomm*|noz*,
> mwave, and hvc*|hvsi*.
> We do override tty[BCDEFHILMPRSTUVWX][0-9]* and ircomm[0-9]*, but not
> the others.  Perhaps we should add uucp just to catch the things we 
> don't override.  We also don't handle TTYA[0-9]*.  I don't know what 
> that would be.  I only have ttyS[01234567] on my system.

The ttyA* rule would be used for ttyACM[0-9]* files, or possibly others.

But yes, we don't override the others.  I wanted to keep everything
mentioned in the file the same -- but since udev modifies the group on
some files that we didn't have in our rules, we would need to either add
the group or override their choice.

I suspect it'd be easier to just add the group.  (And then get rid of
the extra overrides.)

>>> 3. I think the 51- rules should be renamed to 55- to allow users
>>> to place their own rules between the udev default and ours
>>> without modifying either.
>> I can't come up with a reason that they'd have to add anything
>> between the files, basically.  Of course I may be missing
>> something.  :-)
> It's not a big deal.  I think it just gives the user flexibility.

Plus 55 would give us semi-"even" (or at least mostly-evenly-spaced)
numbers, except where rules are tied closely together (e.g. 61-cdrom
relies on 60-cdrom_id).  Hmm; now I'm waffling...

OK, I've moved it.  :-)

>>> If continuation lines are indeed allowed, I think we can make our
>>> rules with long lines look better with this feature.  We would also
>>> need to change the book.
>> Yes, I'd agree.  I may be able to look into it tomorrow, but if you
>> already have a patch put together for these, don't wait for me.
>> ;-)
> No, I don't have anything ready to go.  I wanted to discuss it first.
> I do not see a big need to hurry on this, but we ought to make the
> changes while we are thinking about it.

Probably true -- we don't want to forget.

As far as using line-continuations in 55-lfs.rules, I think most of the
lines are short enough, except maybe the capi* devices.  But if we kill
the override on the "tty[BCDEFHILMPRSTUVWX][0-9]*" devices, that will
leave a lot of extra room for the capi stuff to move over to the left,
so even that won't be as big of a deal.

Maybe there are longer rules elsewhere (BLFS)?

As far as changing the book, it probably makes the most sense to kill
the whole [note] section that talks about the backslashes, put quotes
back around the here document, and keep the backslash in the generated
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list