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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

I demand that viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk may or may not have

> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:20:53PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
>> Some people are using devfs and may be using devfs-style device names.
>> Dumping these could break things for these people when they upgrade to
>> udev, whereas retaining them gives these people a chance to play with udev
>> without having to alter anything and revert to devfs if need be.

> ... and a lot of people never allowed devfs on their boxen.

Which is fine, not a problem, their choice...

> "But I luurve devfs names" is not a reason to go against the standards and
> common practice alike.

I don't really see the relevance of that: there's no requirement to use its
different naming scheme if you're also running devfsd. (Though I do agree
with Roger Leigh about /dev/vc/* and similar, /dev/{cdroms,discs} and

"All of my devices' drivers support devfs, but not all support sysfs" _is_ a
good enough reason, IMO, given that I do want automatic creation of device
nodes. Since you appear to have ignored this point in my previous posting,
I'll just mention an example of this which I see here (the DVB drivers)

> Make it a debconf question if you really want it; making it a default, let
> alone unconditional, has no excuses - standard compliance alone is enough
> to make that a bug.

AFAICS, the standards compliance is already there...

Hmm. This running for the hills... is it just me, or is there only one good
road to those hills? ;-)

| Darren Salt   | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| woody, sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS       | Toon Army      | demon co uk
|   We've got Shearer, you haven't

I am. Therefore, I think. I think.

Reply to: