Hi, please stabilize sys-apps/usb_modeswitch, I'm using it regularly for about 6 months now (see #213973 - I used the software even before it was in the tree) and had no problems at all. Thanks!
(In reply to comment #0) > Hi, > please stabilize sys-apps/usb_modeswitch, I'm using it regularly for about 6 > months now (see #213973 - I used the software even before it was in the tree) > and had no problems at all. > > Thanks! > recent sys-fs/udev store rules in /etc/udev/rules.d Don't know when it all started, but *if* if was 1.06, please bump to 0.94-r1 as follows: --- usb_modeswitch-0.9.4.ebuild 2008-08-26 00:28:23.000000000 +0200 +++ usb_modeswitch-0.9.4-r1.ebuild 2008-11-12 16:39:40.000000000 +0100 @@ -26,11 +26,12 @@ insinto /etc doins usb_modeswitch.conf if has_version '>=sys-fs/udev-0'; then - insinto /etc/udev if has_version '>=sys-fs/udev-106'; then + insinto /etc/udev/rules.d newins "${FILESDIR}"/91-usb_modeswitch.rules.udev-ge-106 \ 91-usb_modeswitch.rules elif has_version '<sys-fs/udev-106'; then + insinto /etc/udev newins "${FILESDIR}"/91-usb_modeswitch.rules.udev-lt-106 \ 91-usb_modeswitch.rules fi
The file "91-usb_modeswitch.rules" placed into directory "/etc/udev/". This is not correct. The right place is "/etc/udev/rules.d".
http://www.reactivated.net/writing_udev_rules.html: "When deciding how to name a device and which additional actions to perform, udev reads a series of rules files. These files are kept in the /etc/udev/rules.d directory, and they all must have the .rules suffix." It seems that all udev ebuilds in tree use that path. There is a new version that supports more devices; the new ebuild is for 0.9.5, contains the fix, and changes einfo a bit.
Created attachment 174403 [details] usb_modeswitch-0.9.5.ebuild
Created attachment 174405 [details] diff between 0.9.4 and 0.9.5
(In reply to comment #3) > There is a new version that supports more devices; Yes, true. 0.9.5 adds support for a lot of more devices, so I think it is a recommended update. Also, the earliest udev version in portage is 114, so I think we can safely remove that udev version check in the ebuild.
I also thought about that, but: a) the check does not break anything b) users that did not update yet (for whatever reason) wouldn't be pleased if we removed it
*** Bug 254390 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
oops...