| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM, William Kenworthy <billk@×××××××××.au> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/01/13 09:44, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> <SNIP> |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> I'm not sure that is a bug. As I posted earlier, this was changed a |
| 7 |
>>> good while back. There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it |
| 8 |
>>> was. The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*. I don't have, and have |
| 9 |
>>> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works. I |
| 10 |
>>> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were |
| 11 |
>>> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives. Since it was changed |
| 12 |
>>> on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Dale |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Might be true but how about digging up some references that this was |
| 18 |
>> done on purpose. It makes little sense to me that if someone did this |
| 19 |
>> on purpose, breaking lots of old scripts, leaving broken udev rules |
| 20 |
>> laying about and just assuming everyone would figure it out without so |
| 21 |
>> much and a news item then I'd say it was done pretty badly. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Again, if it truly was 'on purpose' as you say then that's OK, but |
| 24 |
>> let's not create too much false history here. In my mind it's just as |
| 25 |
>> reasonable that it's just a mistake or someone that was overlooked, |
| 26 |
>> but I'm totally open to you showing us what we all missed. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> Seems like the cabal has been busy again ... its not a bug but a feature! |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=19b66dc57cce27175ff421c4c3a37e4a491b9c01 |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Also some hits on gentoo forums etc which imply that when actually |
| 33 |
> merged, the rules file was not included.. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> This did happen awhile back and I just moved to /dev/sr0 and got on with |
| 36 |
> life so didnt go into it in too much detail. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> BillK |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Bill, |
| 44 |
From the link you provided: |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
"From now on, udev will only create /dev/cdrom for the first optical |
| 47 |
drive, and if the drive is capable /dev/dvd. No other devices will |
| 48 |
get any compatibility symlinks or enumerated device names like cdrom1, |
| 49 |
cdrom2, and so on. The /dev/cdrom and /dev/dvd links have by default |
| 50 |
a negative link priority, which will cause them to be overwritten by |
| 51 |
any other device which clains the same names with already existing |
| 52 |
udev rules." |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
According to the above info Kay didn't single-handedly eliminate |
| 55 |
/dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I understand lots of folks are quite unhappy with udev and some |
| 58 |
of the decisions Kay has been taking. (I do real LKML!) :-) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Anyway, I'm not saying it isn't on purpose. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Cheers, |
| 63 |
Mark |
Archives