| 1 |
On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti: |
| 4 |
> > > On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: |
| 5 |
> > >> Hi there! |
| 6 |
> > >> |
| 7 |
> > >> What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to |
| 8 |
> > >> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother the user with |
| 9 |
> > >> updating these files. Thus it will reduce the number of bugs |
| 10 |
> > >> triggered by forgotten config-file updates. |
| 11 |
> > >> |
| 12 |
> > >> If user needs home-brewn rules he is requested to add own files, |
| 13 |
> > >> and not use the already existing ones. |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > Only problem I see: What to do with people having custom |
| 16 |
> > > modifications inside the default rules-files? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Can they add /etc/udev/rules.d back to CONFIG_PROTECT in make.conf? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> No, that wouldn't work. However they could add '-/etc/udev/rules.d' to |
| 21 |
> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or add individual files to CONFIG_PROTECT. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
either solution sucks |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
the question is, should people be modifying the default rules ? is there |
| 26 |
something in the default rules file that they cant accomplish in a sep rules |
| 27 |
file ? if so, then the dir cant be masked ... |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives