Re: udev device naming policy concerns
On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 01:15:36PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
> > "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...
Your problem; take that with DVB maintainers or submit patches yourself.
Let me put it that way:
1) both devfs and normal naming schemes must be supported - anything else
would break existing setups
2) normal scheme must be default, simply because it always had been default
on Linux; devfs' had been the optional one.
Reply to: