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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

sean finney <seanius@seanius.net> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:05PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow 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.
> okay, fwiw, i'm against devfs names in as much as i don't think they are
> what should be used by default.  if there's a low or medium priority
> debconf question that gives the option between one and/or the other,
> all the better, but at least by default let's do things like the rest
> of the linux/unix world please :)

Why not default to the scheme thats in place?
People with devfs would get devfs style, people without (or fresh
installs) would get flat old style and people with debconf priority
medium/low would see the question with that default (others just
get the default).

Its not that hard to guess the style used already by the user.

if [ -e /dev/.devfsd ]; then
  # devfs
  if [ -e /dev/tty0 ]; then
    # linked or manually created, e.g. devfsd, default to flat?
    # no devfsd, devfs style needed
  # flat


Reply to: