[arch-dev-public] [signoff] udev-118-5
t.powa at gmx.de
Wed Mar 12 03:17:21 EDT 2008
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org>
> > Aaron Griffin schrieb:
> > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org>
> > >> Tobias Powalowski schrieb:
> > >> > - added framebuffer_blacklist file
> > >>
> > >> I thought we wanted to do that with udev rule files by blacklisting
> > >> modaliases. Did I miss something?
> > >
> > > If by "we" you mean that you mentioned it to me over jabber, then
> > > sure. But no one ever brought it up anywhere else. As far as I know
> > > you mentioned it to me, I mentioned it to tpowa, and it basically got
> > > lost in the shuffle. That's why I always ask people to "please bring
> > > this up on the ML" when you send me things over jabber.
> > The idea was posted in a followup on the arch-general list by a user
> > (you replied to it there). Sure, everyone agreed that it was a cool
> > idea, but I must have forgot to state my approval on the mailing list.
> Oh yeah, I just replied that it was a neat idea. I didn't really think
> of it one way or another.
> > So let's bring it up now, shouldn't we rather use udev rules than a
> > modprobe.d file?
> I'm really ambivalent about this. I think it's easier to autogenerate
> the modprobe.d file, and it doesn't need to be regenerated every time
> the modules change (in the off chance that new modaliases are added to
> the modules).
I agree with Aaron here, the module aliases may change more often then the
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
tpowa at archlinux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the arch-dev-public