From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Moore <dcm@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:57:05 +0000
Subject: Re: udev rules for new firewire driver stack
Message-Id: <1219345025.20119.1.camel@dmoore.corp.google.com>
List-Id: <linux-hotplug.vger.kernel.org>
References: <tkrat.3253e0826700753e@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <tkrat.3253e0826700753e@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 20:32 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> David Moore wrote:
> > Yes, I think it was me who originally came up with this symlink script.
> > See here:
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id$0770
> > 
> So, to summarize the need of symlink rules:
> 
>    - We don't need symlinks (aliases) for application support,
>      neither type-oriented aliases, nor persistently named aliases.
> 
>    - Symlinks may be needed to fit the firewire device files into a
>      distro's file permissions scheme though.  (This was actually the
>      intent behind redhat/40-redhat.rules, which wasn't apparent to
>      me when I read the rules files out of context.)
> 
> Ergo, there may be distro-specific symlinks but applications/libraries 
> will not rely on any of those.  (Right?)

Yes, exactly right.

-David