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

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 

       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:


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: