UDEV Rules Didn't Behave Like I Thought
beesnees at grm.net
Tue Mar 7 17:35:47 PST 2006
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 3/7/06, Dan McGhee <beesnees at grm.net> wrote:
>> Dan, I'm not trying to refute what you've said here, I'm trying to
>> understand this system.
> I understand. I think I groped through the exact same way you did.
>> If I may be so bold as to quote from "Writing UDEV rules:
>> And from the man page:
>> = Assign a value to a key. Keys that represent a list, are reset
>> and only this single value is assigned.
>> += Add the value to a key that holds a list of entries
>> So it looks like the article may be in error here.
> I think you're right. I should have looked again. I did get that
> info about += from the man page after reading that the html file
> applies to udev-058 or something (still haven't looked at it again).
Yeah, that could be the situation. There have been almost 20 updates to
UDEV since the last edit and the stuff on multiple symlinks is over two
> I think from reading the man page you will get the most accurate
> information. The online version of the html file
> (http://reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.html) says that it was
> written with udev-056.
> This one rule would work for you (I think):
> KERNEL==hdc, NAME=%k, GROUP=cdrom, SYMLINK="dvd cdrom", OPTIONS="last_rule"
You're probably right, but this morning I didn't think of "last rule"
and hd*[!c] kinda grows on ya.
I think it's cute. :-)
> Now I've confused myself. I shouldn't be talking here because I
> really don't know udev that well. Certainly not for educating people.
I'm glad you said that. I just begin to think I'm getting a handle on
it and then go back and read the HOWTO and the man page. After that I'm
More information about the blfs-support