Unifying the Udev Rules Packages

Archaic archaic at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 23 16:38:11 PDT 2006


On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:26:37PM -0700, Justin R. Knierim wrote:
> 
> So why objections to merging them or even starting with the CLFS rules? 
>  If Alexander is to rule over them like Jeremy H and others mentioned, 
> then wouldn't it be logical to start with what he already has reviewed?

No, it wasn't logical. What was logical was to take a fresh look at
things. Udev has been a fast moving target. The rules need refreshed as
we go along. For instance, NAME="%k" is no longer needed. A second thing
was new concepts that were seemingly not present when LFS/CLFS rules
were written, like using SUBSYSTEM more heavily so we don't have to
enumerate every device known to man. Those were the things I was working
on, and Alex oversaw, so the logical thing was to start with LFS because
it had less than CLFS, then move on to CLFS, incorporate all the changes
and make a tarball. When I posted the differences (both to the current
LFS and CLFS rules) I wasn't thinking LFS/CLFS. I was thinking
unification with a set of rules different than either had. Things were
borrowed from the various distros, including LFS and CLFS so this was to
be a new thing not centered on either LFS/CLFS. But I never got a usable
response in that thread other than * matches nothing and anything (which
I didn't know). This isn't about "My book's rules are better than your
book's", but some have made it that way. Bottom line is that each book's
rules should be confronted, but neither of them should be the base for
the new rules because they both do inefficient things.


-- 
Archaic

Want control, education, and security from your operating system?
Hardened Linux From Scratch
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/hlfs




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list