On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 17:48 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 16:49 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> >> ("---" = upstream, "+++" = LFS)
> >>
> >>> Only in lfs: *
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That's the meat that should be discussed. Without these rules, nothing
> >> works.
> >>
> >
> > Exactly. Do any of these have potential to go upstream at some point, so
> > that other distros can use them, too? I.e. get 25-lfs.rules into a shape
> > where it'd be a good candidate for a 50-udev-default.rules of the shared
> > rules.d in the udev tarball?
> >
> Tried that earlier, and (since that's our responsibility to update rules
> submitted upstream!) it was found to be unacceptable for LFS. E.g.,
> upstream won't update LFS rules when conversion is needed. Some early
> udev tarballs actually shipped with ancient and non-working LFS rules
> and bootscripts, and it has been requested then that they don't ship LFS
> rules anymore.
By "shared rules.d" I was thinking of the directory that currently host
the persistant rules and such. Another option (though only for LFS)
would be to take a nicely maintained 50-udev-default as a base (suse
could obviously be a good candidate), patch it and install it.
What I want to accomplish here is to always be able to grab the latest
udev tarball and expect it to work, without having to wait weeks for
distro rule maintainers to update their external rules (and yet have
them slightly outdated) - but if that's too optimistic, not duplicating
the shipped udev rules is a step in the right direction :)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
