Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> writes:
> Tore Anderson <tore@debian.org> wrote:
> > I'll just start by quoting Marco d'Itri (the udev maintainer) notes
> > about this subject from README.Debian:
>
> > > Naming policy
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > The plan, so far, is to have the default configuration create devfs-like
> > > devices. Compatibility symlinks will be created for common devices for
> > > which the new names are still not used by defaults by programs, but the
> > > goal is to remove most of these links.
> [...]
>
> I think Tore has made a pretty strong case already I would like to
> hear an answer to a simple "Why?" by Marco.
I think the "Why devfs style" can be answered in one sentence:
People trying it out are the same people that tried out / use devfs.
> One of the major obstacles that kept devfs from being adopted by a
> wider audience (besides the racing conditions) was its default naming
> scheme, duplicating this in udev does not look advisable to me.
People are always against change. The only way is to get everybody new
used to the new way and build up enough peer pressure to change the
old guys. :)
> This is nothing personal, I have been using devfs since I switched to
> 2.4 (I am not using it when booting 2.6, as it is obsolete and devfsd
> has not been updated).
> cu andreas
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: