Re: udev device naming policy concerns
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 04:07:22PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> 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.)
Let me point out that Debian Policy (as well as the Linux Standard
Base, which many other distributions are certified against), requires
the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and quoting from
6.1.2 /dev : Devices and special files
All devices and special files in /dev should adhere to the Linux
Allocated Devices document, which is available with the Linux kernel
source. It is maintained by H. Peter Anvin <email@example.com>.
This can be found here:
.... and you can see that it specifies the flat namespace.
And in case people think that the "should" means that it is
option, let me quote from section 1.8, Conformance, of the above FHS
The terms "must", "should", "contains", "is" and so forth should be read
as requirements for compliance or compatibility.
Unlike other documents, such as RFC's, for the purposes of at least
this version of the FHS, which is the one mandated by Debian Policy,
"must" == "should".
Hence, the udev package, as currently configured by default, violates
Debian policy, and as such, this is a release-critical bug which
**MUST** be fixed.