Phil Dibowitz wrote: >> Question: why symlink the udev rule from /etc/udev to /etc/udev/rules.d? The >> systems I've looked at (Fedora, Debian) just install the file to >> /etc/udev/rules.d; it's probably best not to pollute /etc/udev. > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 19 2007-07-21 23:57 025_libgphoto2.rules -> > ../libgphoto2.rules > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 2009-01-30 22:19 025_logitechmouse.rules -> > ../logitechmouse.rules > > As an example. My understanding is it was supposed to be like that - an init.d > type system. > > As it turns out, only a few are like that, not most... so I don't really care.
Okay, thanks for the examples. AFAICT, the rules.d folder is just so packages can ship their own scripts, not to enable/disable them through some other mechanism. If you don't mind, I'd prefer that we just stick the udev rule in /etc/udev/rules.d and forget about the symlink. If you'd like to keep it this way I can easily fix it in Fedora land in the package, no problem. Either way, let me know when the patch is merged and I'll try to build a new libconcord package to make sure everything is working as-intended. -Doug
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H
_______________________________________________ concordance-devel mailing list concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
