Re: [gentoo-dev] Handling /dev/rfkill, testers wanted

[Samuli Suominen]

On 07/03/14 21:39, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 07/03/14 02:17 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > - sys-fs/udev leaves it to root:root as:
>
> > KERNEL=="rfkill", MODE="0664"
>
> > - third party packages like mate-bluetooth, gnome-bluetooth install
> > both their own udev .rules to adjust /dev/rfkill to plugdev:
>
> > KERNEL=="rfkill", GROUP="plugdev",    MODE="0664"
>
> > So I'd like to propose some unification:
>
> > I don't have a system with /dev/rfkill unfortunately to test this,
> > but I believe we should add this to 40-gentoo.rules and create
> > group 'rfkill':
>
> > SUBSYSTEM=="rfkill", GROUP="rfkill", MODE="0664"
>
> > And this line would go as /lib/udev/rules.d/70-gentoo-acl.rules (as
> > the original filename in upstream ConsoleKit is
> > 70-udev-acl.rules):
>
> > SUBSYSTEM=="rfkill", TAG+="udev-acl"
>
>
>
>
> As the other per-package rules already setting GROUP=  are providing
> an understandable legacy behaviour (iirc membership in plugdev is
> still the de-facto way to provide access rights when no consolekit or
> similar control method is installed), I wonder if we can skip the
> group assignment.
>
> - From what I know about ACL's, the 70-gentoo-acl.rules would still work
> fine even if the group remains ":root".
>
> Thoughts?
>

I'm okay with leaving it as 'root' for now, since I haven't yet
implemented my splitted "plugdev"
idea:

I've been waiting for the day PolicyKit upstream does something stupid
like makes it work only with
systemd-logind, so that ConsoleKit is no-op other than udev-acl still
working
If and when that happens, I doubt many would want ConsoleKit installed
at all
I've thought about this a lot, and the best contigency plan I've come up
with is to ship vendor based
PolicyKit .rules files for _split_ plugdev behavior, groups like
ArchLinux has:

'power' for upower and related
'network' for networkmanager and related, and this is likely where
'rfkill' would belong then too
'storage' for udisks and related