FC14 boot message - udev configuration warning

[William Stock]

Somewhere along the line I started getting these warnings at the
beginning of the boot:
        Starting udev: udevd[455]: BUS= will be removed in a future udev
        version, please use SUBSYSTEM= to match the event device, or
        SUBSYSTEMS= to match a parent device,
        in /etc/udev/rules.d/85-pcscd_egate.rules:3
        
        udevd[455]: SYSFS{}= will be removed in a future udev version,
        please use ATTR{}= to match the event device, or ATTRS{}= to
        match a parent device,
        in /etc/udev/rules.d/85-pcscd_egate.rules:3
        
        udevd[455]: BUS= will be removed in a future udev version,
        please use SUBSYSTEM= to match the event device, or SUBSYSTEMS=
        to match a parent device,
        in /etc/udev/rules.d/85-pcscd_egate.rules:5

Is this something that I have to worry about or will it be taken care of
by the developers?  The relevant lines in the rules file are:
        BUS=="usb", SYSFS{idVendor}=="0973",
SYSFS{idProduct}=="0001",
        ACTION=="add", RUN+="/usr/sbin/pcscd --hotplug"
        
        BUS=="usb", ENV{PRODUCT}=="973/1/100",
ACTION=="remove", RUN
        +="/usr/sbin/pcscd --hotplug"

I've never done anything with the udev daemon, and don't have a clue.

Thanks
Bill

[JB]

William Stock <wstock <at> fuse.net> writes:

>  ... 
>  Is this something that I have to worry about or will it be taken care of
>  by the developers?
>  ... 
The udev rules are maintained by Fedora devs. They should be let know about it.

If you are comfortable with Fedora Bugzilla system, you can file a bug report.
If not, let me know and I will do it.

JB

[JB]

JB <jb.1234abcd <at> gmail.com> writes:

>  ... 
One needs to tell them which package the rules belong to:
$ rpm -qf /etc/udev/rules.d/85-pcscd_egate.rules

If there is no package with that rule, then it must be custom-made and should be
fixed by the user (you or whoever implemented it), and that means not reported
to Bugzilla.

JB

[William Stock]

I will give bugzilla a shot.  It's time I learn how to use it. :-)
(FYI, it's owned by ifd-egate-0.05-22.x86_64)

On Sun, 2010-12-26 at 22:34 +0000, JB wrote:
>  William Stock <wstock <at> fuse.net> writes:
>  
>  > ... 
>  > Is this something that I have to worry about or will it be taken care of
>  > by the developers?
>  > ...
>  
>  The udev rules are maintained by Fedora devs. They should be let know about it.
>  
>  If you are comfortable with Fedora Bugzilla system, you can file a bug report.
>  If not, let me know and I will do it.
>  
>  JB
>  
>  
>

[JB]

William Stock <wstock <at> fuse.net> writes:

>  
>  I will give bugzilla a shot.  It's time I learn how to use it. 
>  (FYI, it's owned by ifd-egate-0.05-22.x86_64)
>  ... 
Great.
I give you an example of one udev bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=622670

JB

[JB]

William Stock <wstock <at> fuse.net> writes:

>  
>  I will give bugzilla a shot.  It's time I learn how to use it. 
>  (FYI, it's owned by ifd-egate-0.05-22.x86_64)
>  ... 
Before you file a bug, please get familiar with:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567325

JB

[William Stock]

On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 00:41 +0000, JB wrote:
>  William Stock <wstock <at> fuse.net> writes:
>  
>  > 
>  > I will give bugzilla a shot.  It's time I learn how to use it. 
>  > (FYI, it's owned by ifd-egate-0.05-22.x86_64)
>  > ...
>  
>  Before you file a bug, please get familiar with:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567325
>  
>  JB
>    
Of course I punched "go" before reading your email. :-(

Looking at the email recipient list (extras-orphan@fedora ...
bugbot@landfill...) I got the impression this wasn't going to be a hot
item.

[Beartooth]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 20:01:07 -0500, William Stock wrote:
	[....]
>  Looking at the email recipient list (extras-orphan@fedora ...
>  bugbot@landfill...) I got the impression this wasn't going to be a hot
>  item. 
	Fwiw, I've been reporting this problem to this list, and being 
joined by assenting others, for quite some time; and there are other 
similar threads. 

	In fact, I have one effectively disabled machine which is unable 
-- because of this bug, afaict -- to run X at all. (It thinks I have some 
tiny monitor, instead of 1680x1050.) I have another, marginal, one which 
also fails to credit the monitor size, albeit somewhat less baldly.

	My guess is, though, that your subject line is better than I or 
any others have come up with. Maybe that will help. At any rate, thank 
you for the attempt.

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, Neo-Redneck Not Quite Clueless Power User
I have precious (very precious!) little idea where up is.