[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Udev ATTR instead of SYSFS

Dave Witbrodt wrote:
David Baron wrote:
Getting a lot of warnings about this on recent udev upgrades. I tried substituting in some of the rules files but might have caused problems. Fact is that this was tested with the recent broken udev and problems were (also?) from udev itself.

Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS?

Should bugs be filed against the offending rules parents or will these changes simply be systematically done in course?

If you are using Sid -- and I think you are, because I had the recent udev breakage and I get the udev error messages you are talking about -- then don't do anything. Nothing is really wrong.

The error message is a warning: it only affects the 'hplip' package, and a bug report has already been filed


Once the hplip gets around to upgrading the files they drop into /etc/udev/rules, all will be well again. In the meantime, the warning is scarier than it looks.

But there are a lot of messages that take a long time.
He complains about:

Then the complaint is: SYSFS{}= will be removed in a future udev version, please use ATTR{}= to match the event device, or ATTRS{}= to match a parent device.

Again: Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS?

SYSFS{idVendor}=="03f0", SYSFS{idProduct}=="0101", MODE="0664", GROUP="scanner", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes"

should read:
ATTR{idVendor}=="03f0", ATTR{idProduct}=="0101", MODE="0664", GROUP="scanner", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes"


Reply to: