On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 17:59 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 10/14/06, Mark Rosenstand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-10-14 at 15:57 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > > > > > > 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 know how to do the diff. I'm asking you to do it and convince me of > the change because I don't think there's anything wrong with the > current arrangement. > > Also, I'm confused on what you're asking to do. Do you want to use the > rules in etc/udev/rules.d or etc/udev/suse? For udev-101, it seems > there isn't a 50-default.rules currently, so you must mean the suse > rules.
I use all the example rules and then 50-udev-default.rules and 64-device-mapper.rules from the SUSE directory, exactly because there aren't any examples for those, and because they're the most generic and well-maintained. I think LFS could do the same, or at least use the example rules from the tarball and only maintain the missing files externally. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
