[asterisk-dev] Zaptel udev checking svn 1064

[Matt Roth]

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

>The only way we could guarantee that would be to name it
>00-zaptel.rules, or something like that... and even that would not be
>perfect.
>
>I think the only other reasonable action might be to scan
>/etc/udev/rules.d/* for any other files that appear to contain Zaptel
>rules and warn the admin that the new rules might not get used... thoughts?
>
Do existing Zaptel permissions in '/etc/udev/permissions.d/' need to be 
scanned for as well?

Matthew Roth
InterMedia Marketing Solutions
Software Engineer and Systems Developer