Hi! > My vote would be for the device nodes to be created in the correct place, and > then (decided via a debconf question) have devfs compatible symlinks created, > however these symlinks should be optional. IMHO this would result in a giant mess of flat and structured style device names, as most devices would appear twice. debconf could rather ask whether to create flat _or_ devfs-style names (for my sake also a third option "both"). Of course this should also be a single configuration option of udev (which defaults to the flat style). I use devfs-only names (i. e. without compatibility symlinks) for a long time now, including xmms (with alsa) and cdrecord. Everything works fine with the devfs names, so it would be a pity to drop support for it completely. Thanks for considering and have a nice weekend! Martin -- Martin Pitt Debian GNU/Linux Developer martin@piware.de mpitt@debian.org http://www.piware.de http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature