1 |
On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Tobias Klausmann wrote: |
2 |
> Hi! |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
5 |
> > On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: |
6 |
> >> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> >>> Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti: |
8 |
> >>>> On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: |
9 |
> >>>>> What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to |
10 |
> >>>>> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother the user with |
11 |
> >>>>> updating these files. Thus it will reduce the number of bugs |
12 |
> >>>>> triggered by forgotten config-file updates. |
13 |
> >>>>> |
14 |
> >>>>> If user needs home-brewn rules he is requested to add own files, |
15 |
> >>>>> and not use the already existing ones. |
16 |
> >>>> |
17 |
> >>>> Only problem I see: What to do with people having custom |
18 |
> >>>> modifications inside the default rules-files? |
19 |
> >>> |
20 |
> >>> Can they add /etc/udev/rules.d back to CONFIG_PROTECT in make.conf? |
21 |
> >> |
22 |
> >> No, that wouldn't work. However they could add '-/etc/udev/rules.d' to |
23 |
> >> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or add individual files to CONFIG_PROTECT. |
24 |
> > |
25 |
> > either solution sucks |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > the question is, should people be modifying the default rules ? is there |
28 |
> > something in the default rules file that they cant accomplish in a sep |
29 |
> > rules file ? if so, then the dir cant be masked ... |
30 |
> |
31 |
> I find the persisten-net-generator.rules particularly annoying |
32 |
> (for various reasons including, but not limited to system images |
33 |
> and system cloning). |
34 |
> |
35 |
> So I have an empty file of that name and happily nuke whatever |
36 |
> comes along with udev updates. I could of course unmask that |
37 |
> file if it were to be masked in the future. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Still, this reeks of layers upon layers of customization to me. |
40 |
> I'd prefer a more elegant solution - although know of none. The |
41 |
> classic approach would be a USE flag to toggle installation of |
42 |
> the shipped udev files - which wouldn't work for me, as I only |
43 |
> have gripes about *one* of them. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> There probably simply isn't a simple, elegant solution that is a) |
46 |
> not wrong and b) works for just about everybody. |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
If your only regard is disabling persistent-net stuff you also can archive |
50 |
this without need to modify any files. |
51 |
|
52 |
1. For almost all decisions udev does it is possible to overwrite them later, |
53 |
or assign a value with := instead of = before. |
54 |
2. In special case of persistent-net: 75-persistent-net.rules does only catch |
55 |
a devices if no name is set at that point, that means it can by bypassed |
56 |
simply be doing this in some rule-file before: |
57 |
|
58 |
SUBSYSTEM=="net", NAME="%k" |
59 |
|
60 |
We have already thought about adding a config option to disable |
61 |
persistent-net, but we have not yet find a nice (from developer and user |
62 |
view) solution. |
63 |
|
64 |
3. If there are annoyances in udev-rules, please inform us about this. We |
65 |
might have some kind of hardware, but there are lots of different possible |
66 |
configurations we have no idea of, so please bug us (best with solution ;) ). |
67 |
|
68 |
Matthias |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
Matthias Schwarzott (zzam) |
72 |
-- |
73 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |