On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: > Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti: > > > On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: > > >> Hi there! > > >> > > >> What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to > > >> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother the user with > > >> updating these files. Thus it will reduce the number of bugs > > >> triggered by forgotten config-file updates. > > >> > > >> If user needs home-brewn rules he is requested to add own files, > > >> and not use the already existing ones. > > > > > > Only problem I see: What to do with people having custom > > > modifications inside the default rules-files? > > > > Can they add /etc/udev/rules.d back to CONFIG_PROTECT in make.conf? > > No, that wouldn't work. However they could add '-/etc/udev/rules.d' to > CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or add individual files to CONFIG_PROTECT.
either solution sucks the question is, should people be modifying the default rules ? is there something in the default rules file that they cant accomplish in a sep rules file ? if so, then the dir cant be masked ... -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
