Re: No /dev/cdrw anymore, udev problem?
#include <hallo.h>
* Marco d'Itri [Mon, Jan 08 2007, 05:34:47PM]:
> On Jan 08, Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > My impression is that it always takes the X string part from cdromX and
> > appends it to cdrw, resulting in no "cdrw" symlink if "cdrom" has no
> > writting capabilities. If I am right then... uhm, it sucks and should be
> > changed ASAP. A setup like mine (first drive a pure reader and the
> > second is the writter) is not that uncommon.
> Yes, it works this way (see /lib/udev/write_cd_rules).
> I think this is the least confusing scheme *and* other distributions
> work this way too so I am not sure it's a good idea to change it.
> But feel free to try to persuade me...
Okay, think yourself: whom does that symlink serve? The user, the
user's convinience. And the programs that do expect some functionality
represented by that device name. That is why it is called /dev/cdrom and
not /dev/cdrom0 because it needs to be used by humans and human-oriented
programs. Agreed?
And what do we have now? Imagine, the system has a CD-RW device. And
where is a reliable link representing this functionality? It is MISSING.
Not there.
So why do you want that I do not add that obvious behaviour to wodim but
refuse to add a udev solution for that?
> BTW, now I see that it's a removable device. See #395962 about how to
> get really persistent names. I'd like to fix this for etch, but I am
> really busy with my day job right now and I have not even been able to
> follow up this bug.
I will try tonight. Btw, do you have an idea why the z25... file has not
been created at the first time after reboot?
Eduard.
--
* Tolimar ist sooooo doooooooof.
Der Befehl zum installieren eines einzelnen Debian-Paketes lautet nicht »rm«.
Reply to: