Udev fb[0-9]* permissions

Mark Rosenstand mark at borkware.net
Sun Oct 15 03:41:13 PDT 2006


On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:59 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <mark at borkware.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 know how to do the diff. I'm asking you to do it and convince me of
> the change because I don't think there's anything wrong with the
> current arrangement.
> 
> Also, I'm confused on what you're asking to do. Do you want to use the
> rules in etc/udev/rules.d or etc/udev/suse? For udev-101, it seems
> there isn't a 50-default.rules currently, so you must mean the suse
> rules.

I use all the example rules and then 50-udev-default.rules and
64-device-mapper.rules from the SUSE directory, exactly because there
aren't any examples for those, and because they're the most generic and
well-maintained.

I think LFS could do the same, or at least use the example rules from
the tarball and only maintain the missing files externally.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list