[oe] machine-specific udev packages

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Am Mittwoch, den 13.09.2006, 12:52 +0200 schrieb pHilipp Zabel:
> On 9/13/06, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 08:10 +0200, pHilipp Zabel wrote:
> > > I only recently noticed that udev packages are machine specific now
> > > due to the machine specific mount.blacklist file. It looks like most
> > > machines blacklist the same devices, namely:
> > >
> > > /dev/mtdblock*
> > > /dev/loop*
> > > /dev/ram*
> > >
> > > Only spitz and slugos differ significantly.
> > > (/dev/hda* on spitz, hd[a-z], sd[a-z] on slugos)
> > >
> > > I'd like to add /dev/mtdblock to the default mount.blacklist and
> > > remove the specialization for akita, amsdelta, c7x0, h2200,
> > > ipaq-pxa270 and tosa.
> > >
> > > Is there any good way to avoid spitz and slugos specific udev packages
> > > that are only due mount.blacklist? Maybe this could be part of
> > > base-files or some other package?
> >
> > Personally, I'd like to see several things happen. Firstly, if these
> > lists are going to be machine specific, lets move them to something like
> > base-files and make sure the scripts can survive without them. This
> > means udev stops being machine specific. Alternatively, we create a new
> > machine specific package if people don't want the extra file in
> > base-files.
> >
> > Secondly, I'd prefer to see this change to a whitelist approach.
> 
> I agree.
> It is certainly better to have udev not mount anything dynamically
> unless a mount.whitelist (provided by machine specific base-files)
> exists than the other way around.
> I'm all for including the whitelist in base-files, are there reasons
> not to do it?

Base-files already is concerned with filesystem issues (fstab etc.)
and is a required package, so it sounds like an appropriate place to me.

> Definitely. As mount.sh grows in size and functionality, aren't we
> starting to duplicate pmount?

Good point.

> btw,
> http://www.openembedded.org/repo/org.openembedded.dev/packages/udev/files/mount.sh
> returns a 403

D'oh. no .sh file is getting displayed anyway.

-- 
Regards,

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | FreeLancer | http://www.Vanille-Media.de