Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com> writes:
> * Tore Anderson
> | That one of our goals shall be to eventually have changed all of our
> | packages to use the devfs-style naming style exclusively and have removed
> | the symlinks from the standard locations, thus having rendered ourselves
> | incompatible with every other major distributor (and that includes most
> | upstream sources that use device nodes directly), is absolutely
> | ludicrous. Not only is it a unrealistic goal, but I fail to see *any*
> | advantage accomplishing it will make.
Sarge is using devfs in its installer and its been used widely for a
long time now. I myself have been using devfs _without_devfsd_ since
the first 2.4 test kernels and found (and patched a few) very few
programms that won't work. There is hardly anything that uses device
nodes directly and I know of no case where it makes sense to limit the
source to a single device. Any software that has no option to change
e.g. the dsp device to be used is just plain buggy.
> I think you are overestimating the problems. I used to run without
> any compat symlinks, just devfs, and apart from the fact that you have
> to fix inittab, it mostly Just Worked.
I submitted a patch for init and getty to transparently translate
between devfs and non devfs names over a year ago so even that little
anoyance could be easily delt with.
So I'm all for sticking with maintaining devfs names. The only thing
obsolete in devfs is the suposedly race codition riddled code. The
nameing scheme is way better and more orderly than the obsolete flat