On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 11:44:00AM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
> That's against Debian Policy, version 3.6.1.0, section 9.1.1.[1], which
> refers to the FHS, version 2.1, whose section 6.1.2.[2] refers to the
> LANANA /dev registry[3].
For these reasons and the ones listed previously in this thread, the
Debian udev package should NOT default to devfs. This does not limit us
in any way. udev is about flexibility, and a debconf configlet giving
the administrator the CHOICE would be the best solution. In the case
that the administrator choses non-interactive installations, the default
should be the EXPECTED behavior from the udev software -- the default
udev naming scheme.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature