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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

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 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

Reply to: