Udev groups (tickets 2314, 2297)

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Feb 8 12:22:13 PST 2009

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:40:25 -0800, Bryan Kadzban <bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net> wrote:
> Upstream seems to have mostly
> standardized on Debian's setup, where group "uucp" is used for a UUCP
> daemon, and group "dialout" is used for devices that users can use (for
> creating PPP-like connections).
> I propose changing the GROUP on rfcomm, ippp, isdn, isdnctrl, and dcbri
> devices to "dialout", to match this convention.  (I also propose adding
> rules/packages/40-isdn.rules, and getting rid of the capi* handling,
> since we're missing a required SUBSYSTEM match.  That will change the
> group on capi* type devices as well, but that change is only partly
> related to the GROUP issue.)

All of that sounds good to me, Bryan.
> (This change would get rid of the requirement for "uucp" from the udev
> side, although it *might* make sense to keep it if the user really wants
> to install some sort of UUCP daemon (e.g. the one from inetutils might
> use it).  But the user can always add the group on their own when
> installing uucpd, if needed.)

The uucp group is only an optional group in the LSB, so we're free to remove it
if we wish.  As we don't install any of inetutils' servers, including the uucpd
daemon, I think it'd make sense to remove the uucp group from LFS, and move its
creation to BLFS, if the BLFS devs are in agreement.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list