On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aaron Griffin schrieb: >> >> Some followups here. tpowa went ahead and handled a few of the changes >> I was discussing here, but there are a few more before I push this to >> testing. > > I hope I can make the changes to load-modules.sh soon to make blacklisting > work in a reasonable way. See > http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10972#comment32200 > >> Firstly: >> >> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Damjan Georgievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> And, 51-arch.rules is being installed in /etc/udev/rules.d. Shouldn't it >>>> go >>>> in the new location? >>> >>> Probably not, the idea about rules in /lib/udev/ is that those are the >>> stock rules as shipped with udev. And any distro or system rules would >>> go to /etc/udev/rules.d/ (anything that's not stock). >>> >>> There's some info here: http://lwn.net/Articles/293689/ >> >> So I've moved 81-arch.rules back to /etc. There should be no need to >> recompile applications, as those rules should still go to /etc > > That depends on how you define "stock rules". Usually, the files in /etc/ > are there for the user to be changed. However, our rules are not there to be > changed, that's what the user creates his own rule files for. > > Now I don't see that we should make any difference between rules shipped > upstream by udev and rules added by Arch. My opinion here is that /lib is > for the distribution and the package manager and /etc is for the user. > Therefore, Arch's rules should be in the same place as udev's upstream > rules.
It's a decent point, but I think the *intent* of the udev devs is to put only their rules in /lib, and everyone else's goes to /etc.
