Re: default udev rules

[Scott James Remnant <scott@canonical.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:28 -0700, Greg KH wrote:

> > Especially when the kernel had all the bits, and could have just set the
> > default static name in the first place.
> 
> Examples please, I really don't know how the kernel can do this for the
> things that we create persistant names for today.  Do you?
> 
The usb_device name.  The kernel could call it usb/NNN/NNN if it wanted;
instead it chooses to call it usbdevNNN.NNN

Things like symlinks are entirely in udev's court, I have no problem
with that.

All I'm arguing for is that if we're agreeing on standard names for all
distributions, we make that a true standard and make the kernel agree
with those names -- so the default udev rules don't need any NAME=
except for things like persistence of enumeration.

Scott
-- 
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]