Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Tore Anderson <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'll just start by quoting Marco d'Itri (the udev maintainer) notes
> about this subject from README.Debian:
> > Naming policy
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The plan, so far, is to have the default configuration create devfs-like
> > devices. Compatibility symlinks will be created for common devices for
> > which the new names are still not used by defaults by programs, but the
> > goal is to remove most of these links.
I think Tore has made a pretty strong case already I would like to
hear an answer to a simple "Why?" by Marco.
One of the major obstacles that kept devfs from being adopted by a
wider audience (besides the racing conditions) was its default naming
scheme, duplicating this in udev does not look advisable to me.
This is nothing personal, I have been using devfs since I switched to
2.4 (I am not using it when booting 2.6, as it is obsolete and devfsd
has not been updated).
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel