Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Tollef Fog Heen dijo [Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:40:46AM +0100]:
> | That one of our goals shall be to eventually have changed all of our
> | packages to use the devfs-style naming style exclusively and have removed
> | the symlinks from the standard locations, thus having rendered ourselves
> | incompatible with every other major distributor (and that includes most
> | upstream sources that use device nodes directly), is absolutely
> | ludicrous. Not only is it a unrealistic goal, but I fail to see *any*
> | advantage accomplishing it will make.
>
> I think you are overestimating the problems. I used to run without
> any compat symlinks, just devfs, and apart from the fact that you have
> to fix inittab, it mostly Just Worked.
Ummmm... I find this a bit hard to believe. I ran also with devfs for
some time, but depended on devfsd to translate everything to where
many programs expected them to be.
By sticking to the old naming scheme, we would not only not require
many maintainers (and eventually upstream developers) to modify their
code (and, by the way, the upstream developer would probably stick to
what makes sense to most distributions, not to our strange scheme -
more work for maintainers from now on), but we would stick to a
tradition that has proved to work for a very long time. Not only every
Linux distribution uses the old scheme of an almost-flat /dev, but
every Unix system (at least those I have worked with) have a similar
structure.
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.cx - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: