Udev fb[0-9]* permissions

Mark Rosenstand mark at borkware.net
Sat Oct 14 16:52:03 PDT 2006


On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <mark at borkware.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:03 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> >
> > > Now maybe it's no more work to merge our patchset "forward" into the
> > > upstream rules than merging the upstream changes "backward" into our
> > > rules.  But I suspect it would be more work.  It depends on the relative
> > > frequency of upstream changes that duplicate our patch(es), I suppose.
> >
> > For the first release or two, this could be true. However the goal is to
> > get most of it upstream, so it's likely to require much less maintenance
> > in the long run.
> 
> Why don't you supply a diff of the shipped udev rules vs. udev-config
> so we can see just how much of an issue we have?

Personally, I copy everything in the SUSE directory, then overwrite with
all the example rules, which currently means everything except
50-udev-default.rules and 64-device-mapper.rules is overwritten.

Try a "diff -ur etc/udev/suse etc/udev/rules.d" to understand why I'm
doing so. I have a seperate file for the modprobe magic and one for alsa
since those aren't provided by either.

> > I was refering to the Udev Bible, AKA writing-udev-rules.html :-)
> 
> FWIW, that file is not written by the Udev maintainer. I don't think
> he even looks at it. He just applies patches to it if anyone provides
> them.

It's still the official udev documentation, and 50-udev-default.rules
*is* the most common name for the default rules.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list