Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 14:38:22 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Dima Dorfman <dima@trit.org> Cc: Andrew Lankford <arlankfo@141.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What's the status of devfs(8)? Message-ID: <20021105203822.GD35777@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20021105201910.GD641@trit.org> References: <20021105044708.LIEA1469.out010.verizon.net@verizon.net> <20021105185757.GB641@trit.org> <20021105194146.GB35777@dan.emsphone.com> <20021105201910.GD641@trit.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Nov 05), Dima Dorfman said: > That one can't modify ruleset 0 is documented copiously in the man > page, and all the examples are preceeded by "devfs ruleset 10" (see > the first sentence in the EXAMPLES section). Since this doesn't > appear to be enough, perhaps you (or anyone, for that matter) could > suggest a better way to communicate this requirement? I actually completely skipped the description of rulesets in the manpage because I assumed I would not need them. Sort of like ipfw sets, which most people don't need, so ipfw assumes set 0. I expected devfs to provide me with an empty set I could just start adding rules to. Maybe /sbin/devfs could check which set is active and print an error message like "Cannot modify ruleset 0" if a user tries to mess with it? That would let the user know that rulesets are important and they had better go reread the manpage. Or alternatively, change that example /dev/speaker rule in the manpage to "devfs rule apply path speaker mode 666", so that people who only care about fixing the speaker permissions (like me and apparently Andrew Lankford) can just stick that command in /etc/rc.local and be done :) -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021105203822.GD35777>