2009/10/20, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]>: > So, I wanted to revisit the subject of udev rules. Right now, we have rules > in /etc/udev/rules.d and /lib/udev/rules.d - the idea was that "upstream" > rules goes to /lib and whatever else goes to /etc. > > This was interpreted by some of our own dev team that we should put > whatever udev and packages ship to /lib and whatever we created ourselves to > /etc - which is dumb. Right now we have: > > - rules from upstream packages in /lib > - patched rules from upstream packages in /lib > - rules from upstream packages in /etc > - Arch rules in /etc > > It is pure chaos and nobody understands what is where and why. It is a > nightmare. > > Back when we had the discussion, I suggested what I will re-suggest now: > > - All our packages should have udev rules in /lib only. What Arch > officially ships is what we consider "upstream". (To put it in the same > terminology that perl uses: core-rules and vendor-rules) > - User or site specific rules go to /etc, overriding or complementing the > "official" rule set (site-rules) > > This will lead to a clear distinction and a clear rule instead of the chaos > we have until now. It is also the only way that makes sense, everything else > will lead to the same chaos again. > > Please comment.
+1 from me. Well, running pkgfile -r etc/udev/rules.d I got the following lines: community/em8300-utils community/gpsd community/lomoco community/network-ups-tools community/rezero community/xen core/device-mapper core/pcmciautils core/udev extra/bluez extra/capi4hylafax extra/fuse extra/hal extra/libfprint extra/libnjb extra/microcode_ctl I guess that we should fix them. -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
