On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:03 -0400, Bryan Kadzban wrote: > > > > > Now maybe it's no more work to merge our patchset "forward" into the > > > upstream rules than merging the upstream changes "backward" into our > > > rules. But I suspect it would be more work. It depends on the relative > > > frequency of upstream changes that duplicate our patch(es), I suppose. > > > > For the first release or two, this could be true. However the goal is to > > get most of it upstream, so it's likely to require much less maintenance > > in the long run. > > Why don't you supply a diff of the shipped udev rules vs. udev-config > so we can see just how much of an issue we have?
Personally, I copy everything in the SUSE directory, then overwrite with all the example rules, which currently means everything except 50-udev-default.rules and 64-device-mapper.rules is overwritten. Try a "diff -ur etc/udev/suse etc/udev/rules.d" to understand why I'm doing so. I have a seperate file for the modprobe magic and one for alsa since those aren't provided by either. > > I was refering to the Udev Bible, AKA writing-udev-rules.html :-) > > FWIW, that file is not written by the Udev maintainer. I don't think > he even looks at it. He just applies patches to it if anyone provides > them. It's still the official udev documentation, and 50-udev-default.rules *is* the most common name for the default rules. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
