Re: udev device naming policy concerns
On Saturday 06 Mar 2004 11:21, Martin Pitt wrote:
> 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).
Actually that does sound better ;)
> 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.
I really like a lot about the devfs naming scheme, especially the printers/X
and vc/X, however if the kernel guys say the old fashioned way is _proper_
then that is best to have as default. Ive also found very few difficulties in
using devfs style naming, although ive never used devfs on debian (caused all
sorts of hell with p-port zip drive a few years back) ive been using udev for
ages (well, about as long as i could) and really like it.
Tom
Reply to: