Re: new version of udev has different cd/dvd devices

[Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk>]

I demand that Kay Sievers may or may not have written...

> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 09:00:12PM +0000, Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Kay Sievers may or may not have written...
[snip]
>>> Plug in/out any device on any bus, reboot and all your silly numbers will
>>> change. That's no longer acceptable with current system requirements.
>> That's a known effect and, as such, can be routed around. For some
>> devices, I can see that this can be a problem; but for others, it may well
>> be perfectly acceptable.

> "Some devices" concepts are exactly that we are working on to get rid of.
> Why are you running an explicitely marked as "unstable" system, if you have
> no clue what we are working on?

I'm running what was currently in Debian testing when I last updated -
0.076-6.

>> I know that (given the previous, stable, naming) removing and not
>> replacing the sound card here in my main Linux box would cause the
>> on-board sound hardware to be "card 0" rather than "card 1". That's
>> acceptable and expected (I'm allowing ALSA to automatically number them
>> because, until fairly recently, this worked reliably).

> Then you never used USB sound devices, like headsets or something else.

In the case of USB sound devices, it is *possible* that I would already have
taken the time to explicitly number those (and the others if they turned out
to require numbering as a result), but I would have to have seen randomness
in udev's behaviour or some appropriate warning of such randomness.

I don't know about USB headsets or speakers, though. I'm avoiding such things
on the assumption that they're not compatible with my existing sound
hardware.

(It still seems to me to be breaking things which may be working for some
before adequate replacement is ready.)

[snip]
>>> There is by concept no "sane enumeration" on a dynamic system and will
>>> never be. But seem you don't get the picture at all.
>> If the user says that "these parts of the system are static" (and I say
>> that much of my system is static), why *shouldn't* some enumeration be
>> considered sane?

> Cause _nothing_ is static today. Get used to it.

Then the udev package which I'm using (076) should have contained appropriate
warnings. However, if this randomisation wasn't expected or noticed by the
packager...

Marco, have you done this for 079?

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| Debian,     | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| RISC OS     | @                             | Toon Army
|   <URL:http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/> (PGP 2.6, GPG keys)

RISC OS 4 easter egg E3A00002 E28F1004 E3A02000 EF00001E 55515249 736C6974 00


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id\x16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel