Re: udev device naming policy concerns
I demand that viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk may or may not have
written...
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 08:20:53PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
>> Some people are using devfs and may be using devfs-style device names.
>> Dumping these could break things for these people when they upgrade to
>> udev, whereas retaining them gives these people a chance to play with udev
>> without having to alter anything and revert to devfs if need be.
> ... and a lot of people never allowed devfs on their boxen.
Which is fine, not a problem, their choice...
> "But I luurve devfs names" is not a reason to go against the standards and
> common practice alike.
I don't really see the relevance of that: there's no requirement to use its
different naming scheme if you're also running devfsd. (Though I do agree
with Roger Leigh about /dev/vc/* and similar, /dev/{cdroms,discs} and
/dev/ide*.)
"All of my devices' drivers support devfs, but not all support sysfs" _is_ a
good enough reason, IMO, given that I do want automatic creation of device
nodes. Since you appear to have ignored this point in my previous posting,
I'll just mention an example of this which I see here (the DVB drivers)
again...
> Make it a debconf question if you really want it; making it a default, let
> alone unconditional, has no excuses - standard compliance alone is enough
> to make that a bug.
AFAICS, the standards compliance is already there...
Hmm. This running for the hills... is it just me, or is there only one good
road to those hills? ;-)
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at
| woody, sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking
| RISC OS | Toon Army | demon co uk
| We've got Shearer, you haven't
I am. Therefore, I think. I think.
Reply to: