Re: udev device naming policy concerns

[Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net>]

On 06-Mar-04, 05:45 (CST), Tom Badran <tb100@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote: 
> I really like a lot about the devfs naming scheme, especially the printers/X 
> and vc/X, however if the kernel guys say the old fashioned way is _proper_ 
> then that is best to have as default.

The "kernel guys" aren't saying that *anything* is "proper", which is
one of the points of udev. "Here's a device, call it what you want" is
their point-of-view.

Of course, there needs to be *some* default, and I think it would be
best to stick with the upstream udev default, especially if that's what
the other distributions are doing. As I understand it, it's trivial to
drop in alternative naming schemes, though, and shipping a "devfs" style
and others as examples with udev is good idea. There's no need for a
debconf question, though, as it will work fine out of the box, and one
can change simply by copying the example into place and rebooting.

Steve

-- 
Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net