I'm on a fully updated Arch-X86_64/KDE.
Although the system is functional, I found the following error in the journal:
Sep 19 07:21:34 Miki_Arch systemd-udevd: invalid key/value pair in file /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/69-libmtp.rules on line 1,starting at character 1 ('n')
That file starts as follows:
# cat 69-libmtp.rules | more Unable to open ~/.mtpz-data for reading, MTPZ disabled.# UDEV-style hotplug map for libmtp # Put this file in /etc/udev/rules.d ACTION!="add", GOTO="libmtp_rules_end" ...
I don't know what's MTPZ. How can I fix it.
1. Should I move, or copy, the whole file to /etc/udev/rules.d?
2. How about the other files in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d
If that first line is really how the file begins, it is starting itself off pretty terribly by including a non-commented first line. This means that the "Unable to open ~/.mtpz-data for reading, MTPZ disabled" is being parsed like it is supposed to be a udev rule. File a bug report for this, as it should not be like that.
Also, just so you know, the above qualifies as a "useless use of cat". Instead of cat'ing the file through a pipe to a pager, just use the pager to open the file!
Thnaks, so besides filing a bug, I under stand that I should NOT move the file, just comment the first line. Right?
Yeah, typically you do not edit the files in /usr/lib/udev/rules.d and instead make modifications in /etc/udev/rules.d. So say you wanted to override this file, you would make a file /etc/udev/rules.d/69-libmtp.rules (or copy the original and make modifications there). So files of the same name in /etc/ will take priority over the ones in /usr/lib. The provided udev rules, systemd unit files, etc that live in /usr/lib are not included in the backup array of the packages. So any modifications you make will be overwritten by an update.
But in this case, it should not be that this first line exists in the file (or at least the part of the first line that comes before the '#'). So I think it would be silly to copy the file over and all that simply because you have no intention of making actual changes to the rules themselves, and hopefully any update of the package will have a properly formatted file in it that will simply take its place. In other words, you shouldn't need to preserve this file, as this line's inclusion is a mistake in the first place.
Edit: I just did a quick search, and it looks like a flyspray has already been opened for this… though no real action has been taken on it apparently as of yet. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/36915?p … ing=libmtp
Last edited by WonderWoofy (2013-09-19 14:57:12)