[arch-dev-public] Risky business: udev upgrade

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 14:25:27 EDT 2008

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Dusty Phillips <buchuki at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/4 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
>> 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
>>>> testing.
>>> I hope I can make the changes to load-modules.sh soon to make blacklisting
>>> work in a reasonable way. See
>>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10972#comment32200
>>>> Firstly:
>>>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> And, 51-arch.rules is being installed in /etc/udev/rules.d. Shouldn't it
>>>>>> go
>>>>>> 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
>>> rules.
>> 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.
> You don't do much customization on behalf of the distro, but I think
> Archers like to know what few customizations have been done for them
> by the Arch developers (so they have the option to undo them even
> though hardly anybody actually does) I think it makes more sense to
> put the arch rules in /etc; what you're basically saying to the user
> then is "we have done this for you but you can change it". If you put
> it in /lib, you're saying "we have done this for you and we suggest
> you don't touch it".
> My $.02 (which is losing value as our CAD dollar continues to drop. *sigh*)

I like this explaination a little better than "our rules are stock
too", but I'm still undecided. I'd be interested in hearing some other
opinions here... Dan, you usually have good input... opinion?

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list