udev rules don't match naming scheme.

[Adam Buchbinder]

Binary package hint: hplip

hplip installs a file named "/etc/udev/rules.d/024_hpmud.rules", which was previously "/etc/udev/rules.d/55-hpmud.rules".

/etc/udev/rules.d/README reads, in part:

---
Files should be named xx-descriptive-name.rules, the xx should be
chosen first according to the following sequence points:

  00 rules that it is critical to be run first, usually
       only WAIT_FOR_SYSFS

  20 rules that change the name from the device from the default
       (cannot be overriden)

  40 rules that set the permissions of device nodes
       (can be overriden by later rules)
---

Since this file just sets the ownership of device nodes that it recognizes to be chown'd lp:scanner, it can be placed in the 40s.

It appears that this name is a result of bug 248093, where the old name conflicted with the file 025_libgphoto2.rules, which really should have been renamed instead. However, that file doesn't appear to be generated by the Ubuntu source for libgphoto2_2.4.2-0ubuntu3 at this point--maybe it's Debian-specific?. It appears that the offending rules file is only generated in certain circumstances (see http://bugs.debian.org/428184 ), but it should be generated in accordance with the udev/rules.d standard, if it is. (Since I'm not seeing the file in the Ubuntu package, I'm not opening a libgphoto2 task, but I could be wrong.)

It seems like the respective udev rules files should be 45-libgphoto2.rules and 44-hpmud.rules. Is there a good way to make this change without breaking anything?

ProblemType: Bug
Architecture: i386
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 8.10
Package: hplip 2.8.7-0ubuntu6
ProcEnviron:
 SHELL=/bin/bash
 PATH=/home/username/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SourcePackage: hplip
Uname: Linux 2.6.27-7-generic i686

[SlingshotSuicide (slingshotsuicide)]

I agree with Adam. The readme has defined a reasonable naming convention that should be adhered to. I further suggest that if there's a reason to deviate from that convention then that reason should be commented inside the .rule file in question so that everyone can figure out why it's out of place without searching the web for days. IMHO, it's part of the reason that the comment option is available. I think this sort of forethought will help push Open Source further ahead of The Dark Side.

[Olivier Mengué (dolmen)]

See bug also 500086 which is related (but not a duplicate).

[Till Kamppeter (till-kamppeter)]

bug 500086

[Till Kamppeter (till-kamppeter)]

As the naming convention for the UDEV rules is not Ubuntu-specific this is also an upstream bug in HPLIP. Adding upstream task.