Summary: | sys-fs/udev-149 udevd warning about rules.d/70-nut-usbups | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | gglaboussole <alpalaya> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Robin Johnson <robbat2> |
Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | anm.mlist01, gentoo.bugs, lex.brugman, netbox253, reuben-gentoo-bugzilla, udev-bugs |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
suggestion from comment #1
install the udev rules only if usb is enabled |
Description
gglaboussole
2009-12-13 21:58:13 UTC
@robbat2: This package seems to install its rules into /etc/udev/rules.d and /lib/udev/rules.d. So udev-125 and newer does not care about the file in /etc and takes the one from /lib. So either move completely to /lib and require udev-125, or just stay at /etc. About the changes required in the rules: SYSFS should be changed to ATTR. The header of the file looks normal so far. But maybe the BUS line needs to be changed/removed. Most udev rules apply permissions at add and change events. As far as I remember there are two different matches for these devices: For new kernels: SUBSYSTEM=="usb", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="usb_device" For old kernels: SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device" Here old means older than 2.6.22. I suggest something like: ACTION!="add|change", GOTO="nut-usbups_rules_end" SUBSYSTEM=="usb_device", GOTO="nut-usbups_rules_real" SUBSYSTEM=="usb", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="usb_device", GOTO="nut-usbups_rules_real" GOTO="nut-usbups_rules_end" LABEL="nut-usbups_rules_real" Disclaimer: I am not a programmer. To the reporter: This may not be a problem with "udev" but rather with "sys-power/nut". What's being reported is that future releases of "udev" will no longer support a specific rule construction. The "rule" udev is complaining about is actually provided by the "sys-power/nut" ebuild. You can confirm this by running the following command in a terminal window either as "root" or using "sudo" depending on how you log in and how you're system is configured. You also need to have the package "gentoolkit" installed for this command to work: # equery b 70-nut-usbups.rules It will tell which package was the source for the rules file. The devs may actually re-assign this bug to the sys-power/nut maintainer. Unfortunately, since I'm not a programmer, I can't provide a patch file as a suggested fix. (In reply to comment #2) > > # equery b 70-nut-usbups.rules > > It will tell which package was the source for the rules file. > > The devs may actually re-assign this bug to the sys-power/nut maintainer. > > Unfortunately, since I'm not a programmer, I can't provide a patch file as a > suggested fix. > In facts I'did this command... it's because I've wrote : "I don't now if this is a problem with sys-power/nut-2.4.1-r1 and its rules.d/70-nut-usbups.rules or with th latest version of udev" The results is that nut and this version of udev don't work well together, so as I'm not a programmer too, I've reported this problem for let the programmer to analyze if this is a problem with udev or nut.. I'm just an user, I have no possibility too solve the problem alone, I can just report this Regards Just hit this bug after upgrading to udev-149. Tried suggestion from comment #1 applied on both /etc/udev/rules.d and /lib/udev/rules.d files, changed nothing. udev continues to spam me with this warning on each boot. Created attachment 220691 [details, diff] suggestion from comment #1 Ok, finally the suggestion from comment #1 did the trick. I simply forgot to change each occurence of SYSFS with ATTR. See attached patch. Created attachment 224435 [details, diff]
install the udev rules only if usb is enabled
This patch modifies the ebuild to only install the usb udev rules if the usb useflag is enabled as they are not needed when not using any usb ups.
This has been fixed sys-power/nut-2.4.3 for nearly a month. Just upgrade. (In reply to comment #7) > This has been fixed sys-power/nut-2.4.3 for nearly a month. Just upgrade. > Perhaps we need to mark this as stable to make it easier to upgrade? There is a STABLEREQ already. (In reply to comment #9) > There is a STABLEREQ already. I can't find such a request: http://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=STABLEREQ Am I looking in the wrong place? Rich Yes, bug 321493. |