Udev ATTR instead of SYSFS
in [Debian]
|
From: David Baron on 7 Dec 2009 09:50 Getting a lot of warnings about this on recent udev upgrades. I tried substituting in some of the rules files but might have caused problems. Fact is that this was tested with the recent broken udev and problems were (also?) from udev itself. Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS? Should bugs be filed against the offending rules parents or will these changes simply be systematically done in course? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Dave Witbrodt on 7 Dec 2009 10:30 David Baron wrote: > Getting a lot of warnings about this on recent udev upgrades. I tried > substituting in some of the rules files but might have caused problems. Fact > is that this was tested with the recent broken udev and problems were (also?) > from udev itself. > > Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS? > > Should bugs be filed against the offending rules parents or will these changes > simply be systematically done in course? If you are using Sid -- and I think you are, because I had the recent udev breakage and I get the udev error messages you are talking about -- then don't do anything. Nothing is really wrong. The error message is a warning: it only affects the 'hplip' package, and a bug report has already been filed http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559289 Once the hplip gets around to upgrading the files they drop into /etc/udev/rules, all will be well again. In the meantime, the warning is scarier than it looks. HTH, Dave W. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Jochen Schulz on 7 Dec 2009 14:10 Dave Witbrodt: > > The error message is a warning: it only affects the 'hplip' package, > and a bug report has already been filed I had a few rules using the old syntax as well, so it pays off to look closely what files udev complains about. I still have to test whether my rules still work, though. :) J. -- Atrocities committed in Rwanda pervade my mind when I am discussing mundanities with acquaintances. [Agree] [Disagree] <http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
From: Hugo Vanwoerkom on 13 Dec 2009 12:50 Dave Witbrodt wrote: > David Baron wrote: >> Getting a lot of warnings about this on recent udev upgrades. I tried >> substituting in some of the rules files but might have caused >> problems. Fact is that this was tested with the recent broken udev and >> problems were (also?) from udev itself. >> >> Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS? >> >> Should bugs be filed against the offending rules parents or will these >> changes simply be systematically done in course? > > If you are using Sid -- and I think you are, because I had the recent > udev breakage and I get the udev error messages you are talking about -- > then don't do anything. Nothing is really wrong. > > The error message is a warning: it only affects the 'hplip' package, > and a bug report has already been filed > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559289 > > Once the hplip gets around to upgrading the files they drop into > /etc/udev/rules, all will be well again. In the meantime, the warning > is scarier than it looks. > But there are a lot of messages that take a long time. He complains about: /etc/udev/rules.d/024_hpmud.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/025_logitechmouse.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_libsane-extras.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_libsane.rules /etc/udev/rules.d/024_hpmud.rules Then the complaint is: SYSFS{}= will be removed in a future udev version, please use ATTR{}= to match the event device, or ATTRS{}= to match a parent device. Again: Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS? I.e: SYSFS{idVendor}=="03f0", SYSFS{idProduct}=="0101", MODE="0664", GROUP="scanner", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes" should read: ATTR{idVendor}=="03f0", ATTR{idProduct}=="0101", MODE="0664", GROUP="scanner", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes" Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Hugo Vanwoerkom on 13 Dec 2009 14:20 Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Dave Witbrodt wrote: >> David Baron wrote: >>> Getting a lot of warnings about this on recent udev upgrades. I tried >>> substituting in some of the rules files but might have caused >>> problems. Fact is that this was tested with the recent broken udev >>> and problems were (also?) from udev itself. >>> >>> Should ATTR be simply substituted for SYSFS? >>> >>> Should bugs be filed against the offending rules parents or will >>> these changes simply be systematically done in course? >> >> If you are using Sid -- and I think you are, because I had the recent >> udev breakage and I get the udev error messages you are talking about >> -- then don't do anything. Nothing is really wrong. >> >> The error message is a warning: it only affects the 'hplip' package, >> and a bug report has already been filed >> >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=559289 >> >> Once the hplip gets around to upgrading the files they drop into >> /etc/udev/rules, all will be well again. In the meantime, the warning >> is scarier than it looks. >> > > But there are a lot of messages that take a long time. > He complains about: > /etc/udev/rules.d/024_hpmud.rules > /etc/udev/rules.d/025_logitechmouse.rules > /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_libsane-extras.rules > /etc/udev/rules.d/z60_libsane.rules > /etc/udev/rules.d/024_hpmud.rules > Most went away by upgrading libsane + removing kcontrol Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Problems with Xorg in squeeze after update Next: Kernel 2.6.31-1 and Broadcom Ethernet |