Re: Policy for devfs support
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 21:28, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <email@example.com>
> > > SE Linux also has a list of device names for initially labelling a file
> > > system. Neither devfs nor devfs device names will work with SE Linux.
> > That's fine. But regular packages should not limit themselves like that
> > IMHO. That way, they will work under udev and static, with or without
> > devfs, in either standard or devfs naming modes. SE Linux has special
> > needs, and that's quite easy to understand.
> Every package has certain expectations about device node names. Since devfs
> is now considered as a bad idea the naming scheme should be as well.
Why? There is nothing wrong with the devfs naming scheme. Devfs *is* a bad
idea, but the naming scheme has nothing to do with the devfs shortcomings.
I may not like it very much, but quite a few people prefer it.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot