udev rules changes
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 18:42:34 PDT 2007
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> 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 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.)
After thinking about it a bit, I think we should go ahead and add rename
dialout to uucp (Section 6.6). We have all the other groups covered.
Then we can drop some of our rules.
>>>> 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)?
No, I looked at BLFS and the only rules are for alsa and libusb. Both
have reasonably short lines.
> 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
That is section 7.12. I agree.
More information about the lfs-dev