On 25/06/12 13:55, Michael Tokarev wrote: > 25.06.2012 15:47, Dmitrijs Ledkovs пиÑеÑ: >> # Copy udev rules, which udev no longer does >> - mkdir -p $DESTDIR/lib/udev/rules.d/ >> - cp/lib/udev/rules.d/64-md-raid.rules $DESTDIR/lib/udev/rules.d/ >> + UDEV_RULE=64-md-raid.rules >> + for rules_folder in /lib/udev/rules.d /etc/udev/rules.d; do >> + if [ -f $rules_folder/$UDEV_RULE ]; then >> + mkdir -p $DESTDIR$rules_folder >> + cp $rules_folder/$UDEV_RULE $DESTDIR$rules_folder/$UDEV_RULE >> + fi >> + done > > It is enough to copy first of /etc/udev, /lib/udev file, to ONE > place (either to /lib/udev or /etc/udev). No need to copy both, > and generally, no need to use two (/etc/udev and /lib/udev) dirs > in initramfs. >
No, it is not. The file in /etc with the same name takes precedence over /lib. But if the admin screwed it up and manages to render his system unbootable due to borked udev rule in the /etc, we should offer the system file in the initramfs. Most other packages copy both etc and lib. In the most common scenario, they will not modify mdadm.rules. There is no clear policy whether we should copy only one into /etc or both into both locations. -- Regards, Dmitrijs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
