What's wrong with udev?
Posted Apr 9, 2004 11:59 UTC (Fri) by
Duncan (guest, #6647)
Parent article:
A new device naming scheme
It's not hard to propose a solution better than a static /dev, with the
mentioned device proliferation problems, neither is it incredibly
difficult to propose a solution better than 2.4's devfs, altho it already
solves the worst of the static /dev issues. However, as James already
asked, where's the comparison to udev and a list of problems (other than
standardized names, but that's a separate issue) udev doesn't solve that
this new SuSE proposal does?
Again as James already mentioned, the SuSE proposal already calls for udev
anyway, and with it running, the overpopulated /dev issue is already
pretty much dealt with. SuSE can use it to build such a complicated thing
on their distrib if desired, but I don't WANT all those extra names on MY
system. In addition, the additional classifications they want are already
accessible thru /sys, which udev uses as well, and it shouldn't take much
effort to run thru the /sys info itself to grab the desired info and sort
it as needed in userspace, with the udev libraries and tools already
providing good programmer access to the info. If they want it organized
differently, why not simply patch the existing library interface to
provide the desired sort access and leave it at that?
Udev is already incredibly flexible, providing most of this functionality
if desired and much more. Why reinvent the wheel here, when simply
tweaking the spokes or changing the hub's sleave bearings to ball bearings
is all that's needed?
Duncan
(
Log in to post comments)
