[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: udev device naming policy concerns


> My vote would be for the device nodes to be created in the correct place, and 
> then (decided via a debconf question) have devfs compatible symlinks created, 
> however these symlinks should be optional.

IMHO this would result in a giant mess of flat and structured style
device names, as most devices would appear twice. debconf could rather
ask whether to create flat _or_ devfs-style names (for my sake also a
third option "both"). Of course this should also be a single
configuration option of udev (which defaults to the flat style).

I use devfs-only names (i. e. without compatibility symlinks) for a
long time now, including xmms (with alsa) and cdrecord. Everything
works fine with the devfs names, so it would be a pity to drop support
for it completely.

Thanks for considering and have a nice weekend!


Martin Pitt                 Debian GNU/Linux Developer
martin@piware.de                      mpitt@debian.org
http://www.piware.de             http://www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: