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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

A Mennucc <mennucc1@debian.org> writes:

> Martin Pitt wrote:
> >IMHO this would result in a giant mess of flat and structured style
> >device names, as most devices would appear twice. debconf could rather
> >ask whether to create flat _or_ devfs-style names (for my sake also a
> >third option "both"). Of course this should also be a single
> >configuration option of udev (which defaults to the flat style).
> >
> >
> I vote for this too. FLAT or STRUCTURED or BOTH
> in a nice debconf question
> and we should also not forget the non-i386 world
> I seem to remember that some big architectures need a structured /dev
> (since they have far too many devices... a flat structure is unintelligible)

Ever used "dd if=/dev/<tab>"? With the devfs name thats no problem at
all since there are only so few devices in the top level (or each
subdir). Even on i386 its insane to do that with the old flat way.

As for even more probelmatic archs: E.g. (iirc) S390 can have 65536
harddisks with 65536 partitions. Have fun making up flat names for

> > I use devfs-only names
> debian-installer uses them at well
> we don't want to cripple debian-installer before it is even finished, do we?

Well, to be fair, D-I could boot with a devfs style udev config, just
like its using devfs now, while still installing a flat config in
/target (again like now).

Reply to: