Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Goswin von Brederlow dijo [Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 11:11:05PM +0200]:
> > > 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.
> (...)
> > Well, it's nice that you've expressed your opinion, but if debian's dev
> > naming scheme is to be changed, then it should be done as the result of
> > a concensus to make that change, not because a particular maintainer
> > happened to like it better.
>
> Currently using udev is your choice. And its the maintainers choice
> how to package it up. As seen with for example ifupdown, if the
> maintainer is not willing to change a package your out of luck.
>
> It should be done by forming a concensus and the maintainer following
> that but saddly enough thats not what happens in Debian. Luckily the
> udev maintainer is open for suggestions and discussions.
Fortunately, what usually happens in Debian is that that given
maintainer will listen to what the others have to say, if they have
anything to say at all. I hope this will be the case as well - I see
that udev will start becoming popular, and probably most users will
end up living with it. I don't think it is too far fetched to think
sarge+1 will have udev as part of the base system. For such a
component, I think reaching a consensus -maybe even getting it to the
policy- is needed. Too many packages will depend on the location of
some device files, as was mentioned previously in this discussion.
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.cx - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: