Bug 1202977 - unifying-receiver-udev is missing some devices, and is possibly obsolete
Summary: unifying-receiver-udev is missing some devices, and is possibly obsolete
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CANTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: unifying-receiver-udev
Version: 28
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-03-17 20:04 UTC by Richard Fearn
Modified: 2023-09-03 14:18 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-02-02 11:47:51 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch to add -udev subpackage (2.52 KB, patch)
2015-09-02 11:33 UTC, Richard Fearn
no flags Details | Diff

Description Richard Fearn 2015-03-17 20:04:34 UTC
The rule provided in unifying-receiver-udev only matches vendor 046d/product c52b. In my laptop I currently have two receivers whose IDs are both 046d/c52f.

Solaar includes a rules file that matches 5 devices in total, including c52f:

  https://github.com/pwr/Solaar/blob/master/rules.d/42-logitech-unify-permissions.rules

Maybe unifying-receiver-udev should be retired, and the Solaar file included in the solaar package?

Alternatively, the rules file in unifying-receiver-udev really needs to match the other devices.

Comment 1 Eric Smith 2015-03-17 21:44:25 UTC
I recently acquired some MK220 packages which use 046d/c52e, so I've been intending to get it upgraded.

Historically the Solaar provided rules were inappropriate for Fedora due to use of plugdev, but the new ones use uaccess so they should be fine. Since the rules are useful with software other than just Solaar, if we use them, it should be a subpackage that doesn't depend on the main package, perhaps "solaar-udev", though the main package will depend on the subpackage. I'll test it and update the packages.

Comment 2 Richard Fearn 2015-03-18 09:05:59 UTC
Yes, I guess it should be a separate subpackage to allow the rules to be used separately from solaar. Perhaps unifying-receiver-udev should be replaced by solaar-udev, then.

Thanks!

Comment 3 markzzzsmith 2015-06-18 10:06:01 UTC
I agree with updating a logitech udev ruleset.

I've just worked out that the unifying-receiver-udev package wasn't picking up my 046d/c52f device so I could use ltunify with it, were as Solaar was showing it.

As a side note, ltunify displays an error if you try to list the attached devices, but can query the device directly. The mouse is an M305.

[mark@opy ~]$ ltunify -d /dev/hidraw11 list
Unknown protocol 0x03 in devcon notif
Devices count: 1
Unknown protocol 0x03 in devcon notif
Connected devices:
[mark@opy ~]$ ltunify -d /dev/hidraw11 info 1
Device index 1
Mouse
Name: 
Wireless Product ID: 101F
Serial number: 00000000
Firmware version: 019.001.00030
Bootloader version: BL.000.000
[mark@opy ~]$

Comment 4 Richard Fearn 2015-09-02 10:58:59 UTC
> As a side note, ltunify displays an error if you try to list the attached devices, but can query the device directly. The mouse is an M305.

ltunify is in its own package, so you should create a new bug against that package.

Comment 5 Richard Fearn 2015-09-02 11:19:56 UTC
(In reply to Eric Smith from comment #1)
> Since
> the rules are useful with software other than just Solaar, if we use them,
> it should be a subpackage that doesn't depend on the main package, perhaps
> "solaar-udev"

Ah yes - I see that's important since ltunify also depends on unifying-receiver-udev.

Comment 6 Richard Fearn 2015-09-02 11:33:20 UTC
Any update on this, Eric? I've just been trying the udev rules from Solaar and they seem to work fine. Attached is a patch for the master spec file which adds a -udev subpackage, and changes solaar to depend on that instead of unifying-receiver-udev.

Comment 7 Richard Fearn 2015-09-02 11:33:53 UTC
Created attachment 1069379 [details]
Patch to add -udev subpackage

Comment 8 Richard Fearn 2016-07-16 15:08:59 UTC
Eric, are you still around?

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-11-27 20:08:24 UTC
unifying-receiver-udev-0.2-7.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-77c47c3ecb

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-11-27 20:08:31 UTC
unifying-receiver-udev-0.2-7.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5302c76aa9

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-11-28 09:33:54 UTC
unifying-receiver-udev-0.2-7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5302c76aa9

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2016-11-28 09:36:57 UTC
unifying-receiver-udev-0.2-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-77c47c3ecb

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2016-12-11 00:27:15 UTC
unifying-receiver-udev-0.2-7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2016-12-11 02:22:49 UTC
unifying-receiver-udev-0.2-7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Jan Kurik 2017-08-15 09:22:24 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle.
Changing version to '27'.

Comment 16 Fedora End Of Life 2018-02-20 15:28:29 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 28 development cycle.
Changing version to '28'.

Comment 17 Jason Tibbitts 2018-07-27 21:17:02 UTC
So... I recently did some work on the solaar package.  Unfortunately that upstream is rapidly approaching "dead" status.

Looking at the situation here, I see that the upstream URL is gone, the upstream file contained only one rule and a second was patched in.

In contrast, the rules provided by solaar contain 13 rules.

They are structured differently, with udev control flow statements used extensively, but as far as I can tell the end result is the same.  I've asked some folks who know more about udev rules than I do and they concur.  The only thing I'm doing to change the solaar-provided rules is patching out the TAG+="udev-acl".

The only thing I'm concerned about is what to do with the unifying-receiver-udev package.  I could just leave it, since it doesn't really hurt anything if both sets of rules are present.  But it seems much smarter to add Obsoletes: and Provides:, so I'll do that but can take it back out if this package is going to continue.  Otherwise I guess unifying-receiver-udev can be retired in rawhide any time you like.  (And I'll probably just go ahead and do it myself before F29 releases if I don't hear back.)

Comment 18 Richard Fearn 2018-07-27 21:21:25 UTC
> So... I recently did some work on the solaar package.  Unfortunately that upstream is rapidly approaching "dead" status.

solaar upstream, or unifying-receiver-udev upstream?

I did notice that Eric seems to have removed the unifying-receiver-udev source:

http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/unifying-receiver-udev/download/
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/unifying-receiver-udev/
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/software/ <-- no mention of unifying-receiver-udev

Your proposal to add Obsoletes/Provides to solaar sounds reasonable. I always thought the unifying-receiver-udev package should go away.

Comment 19 Jason Tibbitts 2018-07-27 21:29:26 UTC
Well, one upstream is obviously dead.  The other seems to be mostly dead.

I still have hope that the Solaar folks will come back; otherwise I would just advocate for removing it entirely.  But I do like what functionality it provides, and it seems to work most of the time.  So I figured it was worth putting a little bit of effort into getting it into shape.

The package is built in rawhide but I have no idea when the next successful rawhide compose will be.  I am also going to push out a test update for the release branches.  I don't think it can make things any worse at this point and people have occasionally complained upstream about Fedora being out of date.

Comment 20 Richard Fearn 2019-02-02 11:47:51 UTC
Solaar udev rules are good enough these days.

Comment 21 Richard Fearn 2023-09-03 14:18:57 UTC
Related: bug 1249829


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.