Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Tore Anderson <tore@debian.org> wrote:
> I'll just start by quoting Marco d'Itri (the udev maintainer) notes
> about this subject from README.Debian:
> > Naming policy
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The plan, so far, is to have the default configuration create devfs-like
> > devices. Compatibility symlinks will be created for common devices for
> > which the new names are still not used by defaults by programs, but the
> > goal is to remove most of these links.
[...]
I think Tore has made a pretty strong case already I would like to
hear an answer to a simple "Why?" by Marco.
One of the major obstacles that kept devfs from being adopted by a
wider audience (besides the racing conditions) was its default naming
scheme, duplicating this in udev does not look advisable to me.
This is nothing personal, I have been using devfs since I switched to
2.4 (I am not using it when booting 2.6, as it is obsolete and devfsd
has not been updated).
cu andreas
--
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel
Reply to: