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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

On 01-Apr-04, 15:11 (CST), Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: 
> Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:
> > 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!)
> Thats makes 1:1. Lets get more people to get a quorum.

Oh, cripes, lets not again. Read the rest of this thread. The default,
as determined by the package maintainer after feedback, is the
traditional flat /dev layout, as used by pretty much every other
distribution out there (yes, I know there are exceptions, please don't
bother to list them.)

If you don't like the default, then change it on your machine. Why is
this such a big deal? Why is that so many people around here get so
upset if they don't get their way on something that is so easily changed
to match their personal preference? 

Clearly, the flat layout works. The major semi-technical objection to it
("too may entries") is solved by udev.

Clearly, the devfs layout works too.

Therefore, the maintainer should pick one or the other. I *personally*
think that avoiding gratuitous differences from other distros and
previous releases of Debian tend to drive towards the flat layout, but
if the maintainer decides otherwise, then okay, that will something I
have to change on the systems I care about, if I care enough. It's less
effort that replacing exim with postfix, so no big deal.

OTOH, I'd object strongly to adding a debconf question about this. The
vast majority of the people installing either a) won't understand the
question, or b) don't give a shit, they just stuff to work. Inflicting
internal political battles on our users is a bad idea.


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

Reply to: