Unifying the Udev Rules Packages

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Tue May 23 17:29:49 PDT 2006


Archaic wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
Which you pointed out, and I changed.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list