| 1 |
On Jan 7, 2013 8:08 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:37:05 -0800 |
| 6 |
> > Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Now, my point is that change to /dev/srX was the root cause is FUD. It |
| 9 |
> >> isn't the root cause of this change because it didn't change on my |
| 10 |
> >> systems. All I know is that ID_PATH (from the old file) used to work |
| 11 |
> >> and no longer does. Whatever is responsible for creating that, likely |
| 12 |
> >> some portion of the kernel, changed the value and created a need to |
| 13 |
> >> modify how udev looks at the system. Is it a bug? I don't know. It's |
| 14 |
> >> just the way it is. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > It's not a bug as /dev/dvd is a mere convenience for the user - a |
| 18 |
> > nickname if you will. You are highly unlikely to find a standards doc |
| 19 |
> > of any kind stating the symlink should be there. Which means if it's |
| 20 |
> > not there, you get to make your own convenient nicknames. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > /dev/harddrive has never existed, right? Same with /dev/dvd and |
| 23 |
> > friends. make them if you want, but you can't expect them to be there |
| 24 |
> > and their absence is not a bug. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Obviously someone left them out of the rules files. Maybe they had a |
| 27 |
> > reason, maybe they got lazy. Either way you get to add your own rules |
| 28 |
> > to get the names YOU want. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > It really is as simple as that, don't overthink this one. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > -- |
| 34 |
> > Alan McKinnon |
| 35 |
> > alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Alan, |
| 40 |
> While I don't completely disagree with your POV, let's at least |
| 41 |
> agree that it is nothing other than your POV. I have a different one, |
| 42 |
> but as it's mine it's clearly of little interest or value. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> I really don't see why I'm the one getting banged on here but |
| 45 |
> that's life sometimes. I saw a problem for a couple of months. It |
| 46 |
> frustrated me but not enough to do anything about it. Solving it |
| 47 |
> finally bubbled up high enough on my list that I finally asked if |
| 48 |
> others were having the same problem. (which they were, and which they |
| 49 |
> also considered a problem) Before anyone had actually answered me I |
| 50 |
> had posted one way that folks who cared could fix it. I thought I was |
| 51 |
> doing the community a small service by getting a little bit of |
| 52 |
> technically positive info out there. I guess not in this case. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Sorry for wasting bandwidth. I suspect it's time for me to |
| 55 |
> unsubscribe and just read gentoo-user in a list somewhere. Sad, but |
| 56 |
> flotsam & jetsam I suppose... |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Over an out, |
| 59 |
> Mark |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Eh. Please stick around. Udev is a polarizing issue wherever it pops up. |
Archives