On Sun 07 Mar 2021 at 12:07:30 -0500, John Boxall wrote:
> On 2021-03-05 12:04 p.m., Brian wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, too. In the light of your issue, the Troubleshooting section
> > now has a link to the bug report. Hopefully, this will help users.
> >
>
> Brian, in the reference to the bug report, were you referring to the file:
>
> /etc/udev/rules.d/65-libsane.rules
>
> Contents:
> ENV{libsane_matched}=="yes", RUN+="/bin/setfacl -m g:scanner:rw
> $env{DEVNAME}"
I was.
> I suppose I could have changed /lib/udev/rules.d/60-libsane.rules to include
> that line. Not sure which is cleaner. If I upgrade the system from Buster to
> Bullseye the file I created would be redundant.
>
> Thoughts?
Putting a file in /etc/udev/rules.d/ is, I believe, cleaner as it is an
addition to what the system provides. However, you (and I) know that the
buster /lib/udev/rules.d/60-libsane.rules cures the issue. Actually, I
put it there because I tend to forget changes I make in /etc! In this
case, I cannot envisage any harm would be done, but what the wiki says
and what a user might do are two different things; the wiki has to be
accurate.
--
Brian.
