Re: udev device naming policy concerns

[Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp>]

Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> So I'm all for sticking with maintaining devfs names.

And I'm all against it.  (Whee!)

> 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 /dev structure.

Well, it's nice that you've expressed your opinion, but if debian's dev
naming scheme is to be changed, then it should be done as the result of
a concensus to make that change, not because a particular maintainer
happened to like it better.

Using udev does remove the most annoying thing about the traditional
naming scheme on a typical workstation, the enormous gobs of unused
names; here's my /dev for instance, which seems quite reasonable to me:

   MAKEDEV@  fd@   hdc       mice    pts/      tty   tty6     xconsole|
   agpgart   fd0   initctl|  mouse0  random    tty0  tty7     zero
   apm_bios  full  kmem      null    shm/      tty1  tty8
   console   hda   kmsg      port    sndstat@  tty2  tty9
   core@     hda1  log=      ppp     stderr@   tty3  ttyS0
   event0    hda2  loop0     psaux   stdin@    tty4  ttyS1
   event1    hda3  mem       ptmx    stdout@   tty5  urandom

created with this /etc/udev/udev.rules file (and all other .rules files
in /etc/udev deleted):

   KERNEL="ttyS[2-9]"
   KERNEL="tty[1-9][0-9]"
   #default: KERNEL="*", NAME="%k"

-Miles
-- 
We live, as we dream -- alone....