| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Helmut Jarausch |
| 2 |
<jarausch@××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 01/11/2013 03:04:01 PM, walt wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> This seems to me like very happy news indeed, but I'm interested in |
| 6 |
>> contrary |
| 7 |
>> opinions. There's a recent thread discussing how udev-197 breaks lvm2, |
| 8 |
>> but |
| 9 |
>> that's a trivial fix once you know about it. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> The problem is caused because many apps including lvm2 install their udev |
| 12 |
>> config scripts in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/ (where they never belonged in the |
| 13 |
>> first place IMO) and they should instead now go in /lib/udev/rules.d/. |
| 14 |
>> All you need to do is to re-emerge all of those packages *after* |
| 15 |
>> installing |
| 16 |
>> udev-197 and the config scripts will go in the correct place. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> You should do this before rebooting the machine because lvm2 won't work |
| 19 |
>> until |
| 20 |
>> its udev scripts are in the correct directory. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> Doesn't this seem to fix the problem with booting a separate /usr |
| 23 |
>> partition? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Hi, does anybody know if files in /etc/udev/rules.d like 10-local.rules |
| 27 |
> have to be moved to a different place? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
No; check src/udev/udev-rules.c, udev_rules_new(), which starts at 1578: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
rules->dirs = strv_new("/etc/udev/rules.d", |
| 32 |
"/run/udev/rules.d", |
| 33 |
"/usr/lib/rules.d", |
| 34 |
"/lib/rules.d", |
| 35 |
UDEVLIBEXECDIR "/rules.d", |
| 36 |
NULL); |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
/etc/udev/rules.d has always been the first dir scanned for rules |
| 39 |
(which means the rules in /etc will override any other rule), and as |
| 40 |
far as I know nobody has ever suggested to move or change that. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Regards. |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 45 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 46 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives