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 1IRAs5-0003YL-R0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:05:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l7VGF0QD026686; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:15:00 GMT Received: from eric.schwarzvogel.de (eric.schwarzvogel.de [194.97.4.250]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7VGD1LU024318 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:13:01 GMT Received: from klausman by eric.schwarzvogel.de with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IR97F-0004x4-5O for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:13:01 +0200 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:13:01 +0200 From: Tobias Klausmann To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Adding /etc/udev/rules.d/ to CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK Message-ID: <20070831161301.GA18462@eric.schwarzvogel.de> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <200708311237.58141.zzam@gentoo.org> <46D813D4.7090208@gentoo.org> <20070831154945.d3eb29e4.genone@gentoo.org> <200708311014.43550.vapier@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: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <200708311014.43550.vapier@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Archives-Salt: 4434a178-2e19-448c-a0f0-67482c38e0cb X-Archives-Hash: 96ee2b4ae983455cf52d3f2ac6002772 Hi!=20 On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Friday 31 August 2007, Marius Mauch wrote: >> Petteri R=E4ty wrote: >>> Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti: >>>> On Freitag, 31. August 2007, Matthias Schwarzott wrote: >>>>> 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. >=20 > either solution sucks >=20 > 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 ru= les=20 > file ? if so, then the dir cant be masked ... I find the persisten-net-generator.rules particularly annoying (for various reasons including, but not limited to system images and system cloning).=20 So I have an empty file of that name and happily nuke whatever comes along with udev updates. I could of course unmask that file if it were to be masked in the future. Still, this reeks of layers upon layers of customization to me. I'd prefer a more elegant solution - although know of none. The classic approach would be a USE flag to toggle installation of the shipped udev files - which wouldn't work for me, as I only have gripes about *one* of them. There probably simply isn't a simple, elegant solution that is a) not wrong and b) works for just about everybody. Regards, Tobias --=20 In the future, everyone will be anonymous for 15 minutes. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list