Re: udev device naming policy concerns

[Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 11:22:30AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 03, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > As I've already said, Debian Policy requires the FHS, and quoting from 
> > /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/fhs/fhs.txt.gz:
>
> I do not consider this a major argument as modern FHS releases do not
> mandate following devices.txt anymore.

If you think Debian Policy should point at a newer version of the FHS,
then you should argue for updating Debian Policy.  But for now, like
it or not, Debian Policy currently explicitly points a specific
version of the FHS.

And even if modern FHS releases do not mandate following devices.txt,
as other people have pointed out, some packages need to depend on
device names, and it also makes life much less confusing for our users
if there is one naming policy adopted by the distribution.  

Given that **current** Debian Policy dictates that we use a version of
FHS which requires devices.txt, I'll vote that we should stick with
it, and only make a change if there is really a very strong,
overwhelming reason why we should do so --- at which point we should
worry about the same sorts backwards compatibility issues when we
converted from /usr/doc -> /usr/share/doc as part of the FSSTND -> FHS
migration.  

					- Ted