| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> This represents the future trend. Udev will be an absolute, total |
| 4 |
> requirement for everything. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
There are other scenarios where things can break down. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I was using two pl2303 usb rs232 adapters with mythtv as |
| 10 |
channel-changers and it required some udev rules to ensure that I |
| 11 |
could get consistent names for each one. Otherwise they are |
| 12 |
indistinguishable and the kernel doesn't really care how they end up |
| 13 |
getting named. (I ended up mapping them to physical ports and |
| 14 |
assigning symlinks accordingly). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This sort of thing isn't uncommon with usb. For many users you can |
| 17 |
definitely get by without udev, but honestly I don't see why you'd |
| 18 |
want to. It is really nice to be able to use disks based on labels, |
| 19 |
uuids, and so on. Udev adds a lot of convenience features beyond just |
| 20 |
giving me a /dev/sda or whatever. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives