[arch-dev-public] Risky business: udev upgrade
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 11:51:33 EDT 2008
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
>> Some followups here. tpowa went ahead and handled a few of the changes
>> I was discussing here, but there are a few more before I push this to
> I hope I can make the changes to load-modules.sh soon to make blacklisting
> work in a reasonable way. See
>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan at gmail.com>
>>>> And, 51-arch.rules is being installed in /etc/udev/rules.d. Shouldn't it
>>>> in the new location?
>>> Probably not, the idea about rules in /lib/udev/ is that those are the
>>> stock rules as shipped with udev. And any distro or system rules would
>>> go to /etc/udev/rules.d/ (anything that's not stock).
>>> There's some info here: http://lwn.net/Articles/293689/
>> So I've moved 81-arch.rules back to /etc. There should be no need to
>> recompile applications, as those rules should still go to /etc
> That depends on how you define "stock rules". Usually, the files in /etc/
> are there for the user to be changed. However, our rules are not there to be
> changed, that's what the user creates his own rule files for.
> Now I don't see that we should make any difference between rules shipped
> upstream by udev and rules added by Arch. My opinion here is that /lib is
> for the distribution and the package manager and /etc is for the user.
> Therefore, Arch's rules should be in the same place as udev's upstream
It's a decent point, but I think the *intent* of the udev devs is to
put only their rules in /lib, and everyone else's goes to /etc.
More information about the arch-dev-public