From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262457AbTJGQGe (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:06:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262468AbTJGQGd (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:06:33 -0400 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:59358 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262457AbTJGQGc (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:06:32 -0400 From: Andreas Jellinghaus Subject: Re: devfs vs. udev Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:06:53 +0200 User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity. (Debian GNU/Linux)) Message-Id: References: <20031007142349.GX1223@rdlg.net> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 14:26:07 +0000, Robert L. Harris wrote: > I just hope udev can give a look/feel similar to devfs as I have quite a > few machines already in production configured for devfs and really like > the manageablility. I wonder: do you use the /dev/disc/* links, or the /dev/ide/... and /dev/scsi/... constructs? I'm not sure how udev will be able to support both layouts. Also: do you prefer a devs compatible layout, or maybe use the change for a cleanup? a short list of obscurities: /dev/cdroms/cdrom0 but /dev/printers/0 and /dev/tts/0 and /dev/floppy but /dev/discs etc. also all floppy devices are in /dev/floopy, where each disc has is /dev/discs/discN directory/symlink. I think it's a good opportunity for a cleanup, but that wouldn't be compatible... Regards, Andreas