On 29.12.2016 12:38, Stefan Bruens wrote: > Talking with my distribution/maintainers hat on, I am strictly against > changing the format here: > > 1. Adapting the current file to distribution needs is a sed 1-liner
This is even a sed 1-liner in case of Martin's solution [0] :) [0]: https://github.com/s09bQ5/libsigrok/blob/75dab8c5/contrib/usb_device_ids.txt > 2. Don't change anything that is not broken Yes okay, if you consider the rules being examples and not set in stone. Otherwise, it's obviously broken at least for Fedora. > 3. udev rules are not as distribution specific as some people assume, > actually > the "group=plugdev" is the odd one here OK, it seems to me that the last part of that sentence is indeed an argument for distribution-specificness. Though I don't know enough about cross-distro-udev to say anything about plugdev being the only issue, if so, then the sed solution should be enough. If not, I'd rather tend to Martin's solution. > Sticking with a valid udev rules file also allows users doing manual > compilation/installation to use the file as is. > > *If* one wanted to reduce the amount of eventual changes a distributor or > user > with local install has to do, the approach done by sane and libgphoto might > be > more sensible: > > 1. Add a tag to every matched device, e.g. 'ATTR{idProduct}=="1234" > ENV{libsigrok_matched}="yes"' > 2. Set the permissions in a single rule, e.g. 'ENV{libsigrok_matched}=="yes" > GROUP="plugdev"' Ah. That sounds like a better solution to me, but distributions will still have to edit it, although not every line. - Roland ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ sigrok-devel mailing list sigrok-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel
