[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] /lib/modprobe.d vs. /etc/modprobe.d
From:       Samuli Suominen <ssuominen () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2013-01-27 16:48:48
Message-ID: 51055A70.10006 () gentoo ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 27/01/13 18:00, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> I see a lot of packages installing /etc/modprobe.d when it should be treated
>> like /etc/udev, so only generated files and users own files
>
> On a related note, I just noticed that /etc/udev is loaded with
> orphans in my case, and I can't imagine I'm the only one.  When we
> make moves like this we should include either news items or elogs or
> something to tell users to clean out the cruft, otherwise config
> protection tends to leave it there, and then users fail to get updates
> since their cruft overrides them.
>
> I assume that files that aren't user-edited can just be safely deleted?

I don't have anything there myself; only had 80-net-name-slot.rules and 
wanted new networking scheme so deleted that one too.
Most certainly 70-persistent-* cruft can go if you haven't edited them 
yourself.
What else do you have?
Currently the postinst messages of udev cover these two cases of 70- 
files, -cd.rules and -net.rules
And you are right, if they are not user edited then they can go. There 
is no "rule_generator" anymore in new udev so there shouldn't be any 
generated files anymore either, AFAIK

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]