| |||||||||||||
Hostility in plain sightHostility in plain sightPosted Dec 22, 2012 1:00 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)In reply to: Hostility in plain sight by nix Parent article: The eudev project launches
Yep. So?
Assigning names like /dev/backup is an even bigger hack.
(Log in to post comments)
Hostility in plain sight Posted Dec 22, 2012 5:44 UTC (Sat) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
No. Assigning names to specific devices is exactly one of the use cases udev and dynamic device names were supposed to handle.
Hostility in plain sight Posted Dec 22, 2012 7:16 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Assigning additional names/symlinks to devices is fine. I quite like various hierarchies by attachments, UUIDs, etc.
However, I also quite like stable and consistent device naming.
Hostility in plain sight Posted Dec 22, 2012 15:18 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
Linux/devtmpfs doesn't give you stable device names, at least some device names depend on the order in which the devices were discovered at boot, which is why most distros today use UUIDs in their fstab.
Hostility in plain sight Posted Dec 22, 2012 19:07 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
It's trivial to get stable device names of your choosing. Simply set up a udev rule that matches some unique property of the device, and set NAME=... only nowadays you can't do that: symlinking is all you can do.
The UUID stuff is not magic: it's doing just that, only using RUN= to populate some env vars, then assigning symlinks depending on the value of those vars.
|
|||||||||||||