Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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):
#default: KERNEL="*", NAME="%k"
We live, as we dream -- alone....