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

Re: udev device naming policy concerns

Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.cx> writes:
> 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. Too many packages will depend on the location of
> some device files, as was mentioned previously in this discussion.

Thinking about his, wouldn't it be a good idea for the udev package to
supply the means of locating a device node?

Some examples:
(First the call and then sample outputs [only one would appear])

% udev-find-device b 3 1

% udev-find-device hdc

% udev-find-device cdroms/cdrom1
/dev/scd0  (hdc being cdrom0 in this example)

udev-find-device would convert the given type/major/minor, the old
name or the new name to the naming scheme currently used in
udev. Packages could use that to properly configure themself to the
right device names at install or even runtime.

Converting the linked nodes like cdroms/cdrom1 might be a bit tricky
but shouldn't be too hard. Same for scsi nodes or other stuff thats
numbered dynamically under the flat mode.


Reply to: