| 1 |
On 27/01/13 18:00, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I see a lot of packages installing /etc/modprobe.d when it should be treated |
| 4 |
>> like /etc/udev, so only generated files and users own files |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On a related note, I just noticed that /etc/udev is loaded with |
| 7 |
> orphans in my case, and I can't imagine I'm the only one. When we |
| 8 |
> make moves like this we should include either news items or elogs or |
| 9 |
> something to tell users to clean out the cruft, otherwise config |
| 10 |
> protection tends to leave it there, and then users fail to get updates |
| 11 |
> since their cruft overrides them. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I assume that files that aren't user-edited can just be safely deleted? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I don't have anything there myself; only had 80-net-name-slot.rules and |
| 16 |
wanted new networking scheme so deleted that one too. |
| 17 |
Most certainly 70-persistent-* cruft can go if you haven't edited them |
| 18 |
yourself. |
| 19 |
What else do you have? |
| 20 |
Currently the postinst messages of udev cover these two cases of 70- |
| 21 |
files, -cd.rules and -net.rules |
| 22 |
And you are right, if they are not user edited then they can go. There |
| 23 |
is no "rule_generator" anymore in new udev so there shouldn't be any |
| 24 |
generated files anymore either, AFAIK |
Archives