Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> writes:
> On 01-Apr-04, 15:11 (CST), Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> > Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> writes:
> >
> > > Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> > > > So I'm all for sticking with maintaining devfs names.
> > >
> > > And I'm all against it. (Whee!)
> >
> > Thats makes 1:1. Lets get more people to get a quorum.
>
> Oh, cripes, lets not again. Read the rest of this thread. The default,
> as determined by the package maintainer after feedback, is the
> traditional flat /dev layout, as used by pretty much every other
> distribution out there (yes, I know there are exceptions, please don't
> bother to list them.)
>
> If you don't like the default, then change it on your machine. Why is
> this such a big deal? Why is that so many people around here get so
> upset if they don't get their way on something that is so easily changed
> to match their personal preference?
Because I (and many other users updating) won't be able to boot
anymore if I miss that sudden change (and for other lesser reasons).
> Clearly, the flat layout works. The major semi-technical objection to it
> ("too may entries") is solved by udev.
>
> Clearly, the devfs layout works too.
>
> Therefore, the maintainer should pick one or the other. I *personally*
Or pick both and decide at install time which one is appropiate. Would
it be so hard to support both systems?
I'm not saying devfs style should be default per se. _Personally_ I
would prefer having devfs on new systems but thats beside the
point. What I have a problem with is breaking existing systems. Its
easy to support both kinds so why not do that and make everyone happy?
> think that avoiding gratuitous differences from other distros and
> previous releases of Debian tend to drive towards the flat layout, but
> if the maintainer decides otherwise, then okay, that will something I
> have to change on the systems I care about, if I care enough. It's less
> effort that replacing exim with postfix, so no big deal.
>
> OTOH, I'd object strongly to adding a debconf question about this. The
> vast majority of the people installing either a) won't understand the
> question, or b) don't give a shit, they just stuff to work. Inflicting
> internal political battles on our users is a bad idea.
Low priority question. I agree that this should not come up on a nomal
installation. But having it available as question is nice.
> Steve
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: