Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:13:54 +0200 From: Marco Molteni <mmolteni@cisco.com> To: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> Cc: Matteo Riondato <matteo@freebsd.org>, edwin@mavetju.org, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/63954: devfs loses permissions Message-ID: <200506301513.55718.mmolteni@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20050630090855.GA1372@rogue.smit.lan> References: <20050615162744.GP1053@kaiser.sig11.org> <20050629164550.GJ7953@kaiser.sig11.org> <20050630090855.GA1372@rogue.smit.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 30 June 2005 11:08, Mike Makonnen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 06:45:50PM +0200, Matteo Riondato wrote: > > Then having any other kind of rule in devfs.conf should is kind of > > useless, at least for devices that can "disappear", since rules > > referring to them will not be added do the devfs ruleset, and this > > implies that one have to rerun /etc/rc.d/devfs after reinserting > > the pcmcia nic or after launching tcpdump or whatever. > > Just to make it clear: devfs.rules is the correct way to do what you > and the original poster wants. Once the rules have been applied it > doesn't matter if the device is or isn't in /dev, whether you remove > it or plug it in later. Once you run rc.d/devfs you don't have to > rerun it again unless you add/change/remove the rules. Mike, Matteo was referring to devfs.conf, not devfs.rules. devfs.conf should die, it is there to confuse people. marco
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506301513.55718.mmolteni>