Re: udev device naming policy concerns
On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 05:16:00PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Fortunately, what usually happens in Debian is that that given
> maintainer will listen to what the others have to say, if they have
> anything to say at all. I hope this will be the case as well - I see
> that udev will start becoming popular, and probably most users will
> end up living with it. I don't think it is too far fetched to think
> sarge+1 will have udev as part of the base system. For such a
> component, I think reaching a consensus -maybe even getting it to the
> policy- is needed.
As I've already said, Debian Policy requires the FHS, and quoting from
/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/fhs/fhs.txt.gz:
1.8 Conformance with this Document
...
The terms "must", "should", "contains", "is" and so forth should be read
as requirements for compliance or compatibility.
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 <hpa@zytor.com>.
This document is located here, and specifies the flat namespace:
http://www.lanana.org/docs/device-list/devices.txt
Hence, the flat namespace is already mandated by Debian Policy. And
for good reason, as you point out:
> Too many packages will depend on the location of some device files,
> as was mentioned previously in this discussion.
- Ted
Reply to: