Re: overriding udev rules
> olivier sallou <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > hi,
> > I need for a package to override some udev standard rules.
> > If I put an identical rule name in /etc/udev/rules.d, I know it overrides
> > the one in /lib/udev/rules.d
> > However, lintian raises an error if I put an udev rule in /etc instead of
> > /lib.
> > And if I try to put the file in /lib, it fails at install because the file
> > is owned by udev package.
> > This particular package is for use in virtual machines creation where
> > package removes default network persistence.
> > Is there an other way to override udev rules in package or should I simply
> > override the lintian error message?
> I think you should divert (see man dpkg-divert) the original file in
> /lib and install a new file in it's place. This way the /etc override
> mechanism is still usable by the admin if needed.
Maybe doesn't apply here but why was LAST_ACTION removed anyway,
apparently in Debian first.
It is clear to me that whilst a great big warning and wrong usage
resulting in a pounding would be fine, removing it is simply bad design
and removes freedom from users and simply causes them problems.
An example being automatic removal of a usb key for Truecrypt which is
then remounted and so has to be manually unmounted before removal. A ro
mount may do but still.
Overriding files creates management that shouldn't be required and
GOTO is the wrong fix that doesn't really work and requires editing of
packages files or management of new files which is dumb when a USERS
rule applies to a single usb device.
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a