Re: udev device naming policy concerns
* Steve Greenland
> The "kernel guys" aren't saying that *anything* is "proper",
You're wrong, see below.
> 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.
I agree fully with you here, this is the way to go. Especially
considering that the "kernel guys" and the Free Standards Group/LANANA
indeed do mandate what's the "proper" default names, see:
Of course, as you point out, udev makes it easy for an user to
override these defaults and adopt any naming scheme that he wish, be
it the devfs one or the Sun Solaris one. That's however none of our