From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IRAs6-0003YL-Un for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:05:31 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l7VEGuUt017116; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:16:56 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7VEEW92014055 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:14:35 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31DB6757E for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:14:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:14:43 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200708311237.58141.zzam@gentoo.org> <46D813D4.7090208@gentoo.org> <20070831154945.d3eb29e4.genone@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20070831154945.d3eb29e4.genone@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2030729.qoPGNEffJN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200708311014.43550.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: d4e07040-29d8-4ef6-a8dd-473de72dde6a X-Archives-Hash: d7f56a23fd7cc437a34c9c1c84e745e0 --nextPart2030729.qoPGNEffJN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: > Petteri R=E4ty wrote: > > Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti: > > > On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: > > >> Hi there! > > >> > > >> What do you think about adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to > > >> CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK. This will no longer bother the user with > > >> updating these files. Thus it will reduce the number of bugs > > >> triggered by forgotten config-file updates. > > >> > > >> If user needs home-brewn rules he is requested to add own files, > > >> and not use the already existing ones. > > > > > > Only problem I see: What to do with people having custom > > > modifications inside the default rules-files? > > > > Can they add /etc/udev/rules.d back to CONFIG_PROTECT in make.conf? > > No, that wouldn't work. However they could add '-/etc/udev/rules.d' to > CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK or add individual files to CONFIG_PROTECT. either solution sucks the question is, should people be modifying the default rules ? is there=20 something in the default rules file that they cant accomplish in a sep rule= s=20 file ? if so, then the dir cant be masked ... =2Dmike --nextPart2030729.qoPGNEffJN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.6 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUARtgiU0FjO5/oN/WBAQK7lRAAgzID9PkNaAO/qw98dYof0P5RGCYMljCb cNt0HeLvDMX/D2CyPouaCClw/ujk/pUZuyKXdcY0V/SIO/dJhMh4AbT0mtqwqJ0E 0Dr0pYHI2fPvMohetzcaPhCl2ZupL0/1F6f7gTGJYKYIu5E7JFgLS6yHOvzll0za eaJdkXM7f1qRmXl0pliOz6af/Vm64jvCqrLGU4DpM7OZOxUxO4L1v/ohbyMktiyy NOep/YhZzJ+TWk7lmaJ0/PrU2D1wR0iM6taiZf7zP6FOZw6opHGMWB6lQaIWwyaf yTaLCcHckzLjQDJ7dNiOwpdZ6HFB47obu+S70tKdyF4V5/4yZmjg46VhH5SHg0Vn k1rnETac+rEQKpvoJDZ77gI9+LxdQ1CzRUNBXxJaq2/Imyvd47hj7D3x/8+YCeRJ Bt9du2Efg3+/CuStfoj+xCvzt6DISJBEN1BSqxvUZgP5Bl8WXDONHSyK5lyJ8Ra4 M2a24KR+OvFXskS8KhxvBvPS1n9vEyiq6FioUDq4Pee3hJ8qvOhaSBWtRtfyuU6P kh8Tuob4MjdYB1Ktms0C1mhxAjVzndUtZvWFmQYj2Xr5OxIJbeJupkYfzmazq+AR 5kS3Fvo/iC5kNsbYWcaqSc+aaGiv0fwhpVwKmf3cVBcrQVyuXv2gENrH7PFqoa2c FMNMJ6MeoDs= =9PLm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2030729.qoPGNEffJN-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list