udev rules changes

Bruce Dubbs 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[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.)

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
> file.

That is section 7.12.  I agree.

  -- Bruce



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list