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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

Paul.Hampson@anu.edu.au (Paul Hampson) writes:
> I suspect the old-style naming config file would probably be a one
> line udev.rules:  KERNEL="*" NAME="%k"

That works nicely for me (I just deleted the entire old udev.rules
file, and used that one line).

It has the advantage that it's:

 (1) very, very, simple (and udev is -- generally -- pretty simple;
     it would be nice to preserve that property in the default config)
 (2) backward compatible
 (3) conforms to current standards

I think it ought to be the default in the udev package; the much more
complicated devfs-style rules file can be included in the package as an
example people can drop in if they want.

If debian's going to move to a different naming scheme for /dev, it
seems like it should happen because a consensus of developer wants
too, not because a single developer happened to prefer it.

`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
 that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
 less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.'  [The Economist]

Reply to: