Am Donnerstag 04 September 2008 schrieb Thomas Bächler: > 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. Hi I agree with Thomas here and if the user does want to change our default rules, copying our file to /etc will override it then. In short from my point the rules in the package should go to /lib instead to /etc.
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
