Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Or use :=, but that's what I was trying to avoid if possible. There are > a few other differences between our permissions (or groups) and udev's, > which I was hoping to override by moving 25- to 51- and leaving those > rules alone.
Using :+ or "last_rule" really shouldn't be that big a deal. Besides, it is educational if someone analyzes the file. The udev ducumentation says that "I suggest you create a file at /etc/udev/rules.d/10-local.rules and write all your rules into this file." Looking at other distros, several seem to use 40, but several have a 64 too. Speaking of that, Kay has debian, gentoo, frugalware, redhat, etc. Maybe if we sent him the LFS rules, he would include them too. Just a thought. > One instance is everywhere that udev assigns "uucp", we seem to assign > "dialout" instead. I think that's because we have no "uucp" group. Yes. uucp is an anachronism, but most still use it. RedHat seems to use it for a lot of serial devices, but we just use dialout for that. Actually dialout is a bit dated too. Who uses a modem any more? Not anyone I know. We could override that group with a 64- file or use :=. Another option is to revert to uucp. The only place that dialout is in the book is section 6.6 and then it is only in a cat > /etc/group << "EOF". It is not explained there. It is also not mentioned in BLFS at all. This may be the simplest route as the custom rules could jsut not mention this at all. > Another is all the input devices: we assign 0644, but udev assigns 0640 > or 0600, depending on the device. I'd rather not have to be a member of > a certain group in order to test input devices. Another is agpgart: > udev assigns 0600, but we assign 0666. (This may not matter, since X is > setuid root.) The last two are disk and tape devices: udev assigns tape > devices to group "disk" instead of "tape", and disk devices get mode > 0640 instead of our 0660. I would think that the simpler we make our rules, the better. For comparison RedHat only has 15 rules in 40- and 1 rule in 64- (and that is for pam and wouldn't apply to LFS). Similarly, suse has 11 rules in 40- and all the rules in 64- apply to something called device-mapper that doesn't apply to LFS. > All of those can be overridden if we move our rules to 51-; just the TTY > devices can't be. So if we want to go with udev's permissions for TTYs > (which sound like they'd probably work), then that should be fine. Looking at other distros, I'm not sure anymore if we need any custom rules at all. I haven't looked at it in detail, but suse only changes some groups to video and redhat generally sets some symlinks and changes the owner and group of vc* devices. All this customization would depend on non-LFS packages. I see it rare, if at all, that BLFS would need to address the issue. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
