Udev Rules

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Sun Oct 12 19:26:54 PDT 2008


On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Randy McMurchy
<randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> Sorry...already reopened as I didn't see Bruce's comment about closing
>> it.  Closed it again.  Well anyway, Dan posted a link to the
>> conversation upstream.
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/12895
>>
>> Bottom line, it is still left to opinion for now.  However, I too am
>> leaning towards /lib/udev/rules.d myself for both rule sets.  Taken from
>> the README:
>
> Count me as sitting on the fence with no preference. If anything,
> I lean to going with what the maintainers prefer. If the rules are
> not meant to be edited, then I'm indifferent.

A lot of them are really not meant to be edited by systems
administrators even. Take the libusb rule: exposing it as
configuration only opens you up to breaking your system. And the nice
thing with this separation is that you can still use /etc/udev/rules.d
if you find something you want to tweak like group settings or
permissions or an extra symlink.

One of the big drivers of that change is that DeviceKit (the next
generation HAL) will just merge all it's rules in with udev. So
instead of having the whole FDI file setup like now, DeviceKit will
put all its rules (analogous to the hal-info tarball) into
/lib/udev/rules.d and piggyback off of udev. Right now, HAL recreates
a lot of what udev is already doing, so the developers are aiming for
a much tighter integration between the two systems.

> Count my vote to whatever the majority agrees upon. We can always
> open the ticket again. But discussion should occur here, and not
> in -book.

One thing brought up in the hotplug thread by Scott James Remnant (one
of the Ubuntu developers) is the question of why these
non-configurable defaults aren't just set in the kernel. I think
that's a very valid question, but for now we just sort of rely on udev
setting up a sane /dev that applications expect.

But I'm probably in the same camp where it's not that important to me.
If people feel strongly that they want to keep all the rules in
/etc/udev/rules.d, I don't really mind.

> Here's me, sitting on the fence, leaning towards Kay Seivers (sp?).

Sievers. :)

--
Dan



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list