Re: udev device naming policy concerns
On Apr 02, Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> wrote:
> Clearly, the flat layout works. The major semi-technical objection to it
> ("too may entries") is solved by udev.
No. The major technical objection to the old-style layout is that
non-positional names like sdX and hdX are a PITA for non-trivial systems
because drives may change name when new ones are plugged in.
> Therefore, the maintainer should pick one or the other. I *personally*
> think that avoiding gratuitous differences from other distros and
> previous releases of Debian tend to drive towards the flat layout, but
This is the reason in the end I choose to use the old-style layout, but
after doing this I noticed that the red hat package uses a
devfs-style-with-symlinks layout.
Anyay, udev will stay old-style for the next future, the default can be
changed at any time.
> OTOH, I'd object strongly to adding a debconf question about this. The
Me too, I have no plan to do it.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [5530 prcmR4La0eiSo]
Reply to: