On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 10:19:05AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: > 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. Maybe it ought to look at the current /dev layout? That'd save a question that's easily guessable. On the other hand, automating such a choice (which I was considering suggesting as well) leads to hassles in the conf-file handling, as something has to cease being a conffile. A notification of some kind if devfs is detected for the user to install the devfs configuration example file (yes, all kinds of assumptions in that sentence) would be sufficient, since udev does _not_ start at the end of postinst, so it's not too late. :-) -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE 6th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361) Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au "No survivors? Then where do the stories come from I wonder?" -- Capt. Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial use, duplication and distribution. -----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature