Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#2237 closed task (invalid)
Packaged udev rules should be installed in /lib/udev/rules.d
| Reported by: | willimm | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 6.4 |
| Component: | Book | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
Here are some problems with the lfs udev rules.
- Rules now should be installed into /lib/udev/rules.d, for reasons they should be not edited by a user.
Change History (9)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → duplicate |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | duplicate |
| Status: | closed → reopened |
| Summary: | Udev rules ploblems → Packaged udev rules should be installed in /lib/udev/rules.d |
Actually, I'm not sure, but I think that the second point might be valid. I'll have to review the docs, but I believe that the pilot link and 64* rules should actually be placed in /lib/udev/rules.d/ since they are provided by the udev package itself. Temporarily reopening for this and modifying description. #2076 should be closed with this update.
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Thanks, DJ. Perhaps I was a bit rude in my closing of the ticket before. I think I need to take a few days off.
Which is going to happen as I'm going back to Houston on Tuesday to work on the helicopter for a week or so. I live in Louisiana now and haven't got the helicopter out of Houston yet.
Thanks for monitoring everything, but W. is starting to get on my nerve with his approach to the tickets (no research whatsoever).
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Maybe...those are distribution specific so _I_ think not. Willim, have you seen docs that suggest otherwise?
comment:7 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
The udev package installs the rules in /etc/udev/rules.d by default. The argument the rules should not be changed by the user is invalid. The rules are root:root 0644 so a user would have to be root anyway. You could make the same argument that passwd should not be in /etc and it would be equally invalid.
Closing. Any further discussion should occur on -dev.
And William, your opinion does not count. Back up what you say with research and we might pay more attention.
comment:9 by , 16 years ago
Here's the thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/12895
I tend to agree with that sentiment. 90% of the rules will probably never be changed and will probably only cause problems if they are changed. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, though.
comment:10 by , 16 years ago
After reading the above thread, it is still left to preference for now. I'm now leaning towards /lib/udev/rules.d for the lfs rules, but the argument can be the other way around too. Where distro rules are meant to be edited. "Your distro your rules" pun intended. ;-)
I think we have three for and two against. Anybody else want to jump in?
comment:11 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
Woah..who closed this ticket again? Discussion is not over yet. I reopened it, and changed the subject and description so this could take place.
-- DJ Lucas
comment:12 by , 16 years ago
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
Oops, missed Bruce's comment in the refresh. Closed again.
Closing this ticket as a duplicate (floppy issue) and as invalid (rules are already in /etc/ which user don't have permissions to write to).
William, though I think your intentions are good, you are becoming a pest. Please start doing some research before just blindly adding tickets or commenting on tickets.
Please.....