On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Dusty Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Aaron Griffin schrieb: >>>> >>>> Some followups here. tpowa went ahead and handled a few of the changes >>>> I was discussing here, but there are a few more before I push this to >>>> testing. >>> >>> I hope I can make the changes to load-modules.sh soon to make blacklisting >>> work in a reasonable way. See >>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10972#comment32200 >>> >>>> Firstly: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Damjan Georgievski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And, 51-arch.rules is being installed in /etc/udev/rules.d. Shouldn't it >>>>>> go >>>>>> in the new location? >>>>> >>>>> Probably not, the idea about rules in /lib/udev/ is that those are the >>>>> stock rules as shipped with udev. And any distro or system rules would >>>>> go to /etc/udev/rules.d/ (anything that's not stock). >>>>> >>>>> There's some info here: http://lwn.net/Articles/293689/ >>>> >>>> So I've moved 81-arch.rules back to /etc. There should be no need to >>>> recompile applications, as those rules should still go to /etc >>> >>> That depends on how you define "stock rules". Usually, the files in /etc/ >>> are there for the user to be changed. However, our rules are not there to be >>> changed, that's what the user creates his own rule files for. >>> >>> Now I don't see that we should make any difference between rules shipped >>> upstream by udev and rules added by Arch. My opinion here is that /lib is >>> for the distribution and the package manager and /etc is for the user. >>> Therefore, Arch's rules should be in the same place as udev's upstream >>> rules. >> >> It's a decent point, but I think the *intent* of the udev devs is to >> put only their rules in /lib, and everyone else's goes to /etc. > > You don't do much customization on behalf of the distro, but I think > Archers like to know what few customizations have been done for them > by the Arch developers (so they have the option to undo them even > though hardly anybody actually does) I think it makes more sense to > put the arch rules in /etc; what you're basically saying to the user > then is "we have done this for you but you can change it". If you put > it in /lib, you're saying "we have done this for you and we suggest > you don't touch it". > > My $.02 (which is losing value as our CAD dollar continues to drop. *sigh*)
I like this explaination a little better than "our rules are stock too", but I'm still undecided. I'd be interested in hearing some other opinions here... Dan, you usually have good input... opinion?