(In reply to Ryan Sawhill from comment #1)
> Hi Peter. Glad to hear that this has been identified as a problem. Obviously
> I wouldn't normally edit /usr/lib/udev/rules.d/*.rules files (I know changes
> will be reverted on update of systemd; perhaps it works like systemd unit
> files and I could put an override file of the same name in
> /etc/udev/rules.d?) but if I comment out that rule in 99-systemd.rules, is
> it sufficient to run `udevadm control --reload` to avoid being bitten by
> this issue?
Yes, you can comment out that rule for now in /lib/udev/rules.d/99-systemd.rules and then on next systemd update, this will be overwritten by the new rules file which will have this removed officially.
(In reply to Ryan Sawhill from comment #1) udev/rules. d/*.rules files (I know changes
> Hi Peter. Glad to hear that this has been identified as a problem. Obviously
> I wouldn't normally edit /usr/lib/
> will be reverted on update of systemd; perhaps it works like systemd unit
> files and I could put an override file of the same name in
> /etc/udev/rules.d?) but if I comment out that rule in 99-systemd.rules, is
> it sufficient to run `udevadm control --reload` to avoid being bitten by
> this issue?
Yes, you can comment out that rule for now in /lib/udev/ rules.d/ 99-systemd. rules and then on next systemd update, this will be overwritten by the new rules file which will have this removed officially.
And yes, udevadm control --reload should suffice.