Re: udev rules for 2 identical webcams + 1 spare cam

[Tuxoholic <tuxoholic@hotmail.de>]

> Von: Camaleón <noelamac@xxxxx.xxx>
>> What do you mean ? - SYMLINK+="webcam%n" ? I tried that, didn't help.
>Nope.
>
>I wanted to know why you used Name="video%n" instead Name="video1" and 
>Name="video2" in two separate rules/lines.

I see your point, so I tried this:

$ cat /etc/udev/rules.d/10-webcam.rules:
SUBSYSTEM=="video4linux", ATTRS{idVendor}=="0c45", \
ATTRS{idProduct}=="62c0", Name="video0", GROUP="video"

SUBSYSTEM=="video4linux", ATTRS{idVendor}=="046d", \
ATTRS{idProduct}=="08a2", Name="video1", GROUP="video"

SUBSYSTEM=="video4linux", ATTRS{idVendor}=="046d", \
ATTRS{idProduct}=="08a2", Name="video2", GROUP="video"


$ ls -la /dev/video*
crw-rw----+ 1 root video 81, 2 14. Jul 20:40 /dev/video0
crw-------  1 root root  81, 1 14. Jul 20:40 /dev/video1
crw-rw----+ 1 root video 81, 1 14. Jul 20:40 /dev/video2

As you can see now it's affecting video1 instead of video2  - this is 
reproducible over several boots. It is even worse now, as it affects *one* cam 
plugged in as well:

$ ls -la /dev/video*
crw-rw----+ 1 root video 81, 0 14. Jul 20:51 /dev/video0
crw-------  1 root root  81, 1 14. Jul 20:51 /dev/video1
crw-rw----+ 1 root video 81, 1 14. Jul 20:40 /dev/video2

This is seriously odd: udev is now unable to detect the right amount of 
plugged Quickcams - this never happend with 2 rules and "video%n" syntax.

I still consider it a bug, but I should test this with sth newer than squeeze.

Some more ideas what I can test?

Thanks and regards, Tuxholicd