On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:35:18AM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 31.01.2018 um 02:08 schrieb Michael Biebl: > > Control: reassign -1 libu2f-udev > > > > Am 31.01.2018 um 00:38 schrieb Kurt Roeckx: > > >> That seems as good as the same as > >> /lib/udev/rules.d/70-debian-uaccess.rules, which actually seems to > >> cover more devices. So it was not installed, installing it didn't > >> have any effect. > > > > You should report your device to libu2f-udev then. Reassigning accordingly. > > > > As announced, /lib/udev/rules.d/70-debian-uaccess.rules will go away. > > Let me add, what my reasons for dropping > /lib/udev/rules.d/70-debian-uaccess.rules are > a/ I don't think it makes sense to maintain this whitelist twice (in > libu2f and in udev as a downstream specific patch) > > b/ If such a list has to maintained, it should preferably be done by > maintainers who own such hardware and are knowledgeable in that area. > > c/ I don't want to maintain this list as a downstream patch to udev. > Adding this to udev upstream was rejected: > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/102 > > d/ The reasons why 70-debian-uaccess.rules was added in the first place, > was a quick-fix to unbreak stretch, I don't plan to maintain that file > in the future. > > e/ I'm not aware about the state of the proper U2F driver that is > mentioned in > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/102#issuecomment-110105805 but > maybe a udev helper like fedora ships it > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/u2f-hidraw-policy/ > which detects u2f devices automatically and so doesn't require a > hardware list to be continuously updated is a better approach. I'll > leave that up to the maintainer of libu2f to evaluate.
This is all not related to my issue, that while having udev rules to set permissions I do not get them. kurt
