Your message dated Sun, 22 May 2005 02:36:59 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#310125: udev: compat*.rules should have hd* symlink rule
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 21 May 2005 20:19:33 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 21 13:19:33 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail01.netian.com [203.231.231.171]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DZaRY-00016b-00; Sat, 21 May 2005 13:19:33 -0700
Received: by mail01.netian.com (5.1.048.1k) id 4278EBFA01412618 for [EMAIL
PROTECTED]; Sun, 22 May 2005 05:19:31 +0900
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 13:19:30 -0700
From: "Ken Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: udev: compat*.rules should have hd* symlink rule
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Importance: Normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="EUC-KR"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_44,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,
HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: udev
Version: 0.056-2
When I use udev with devfs-style naming scheme,
I wish not to have /dev/hd* symlinks.
I don't believe these symlinks are vital to system bootup.
I believe the users should be given the choice
where or not they have /dev/hd* symlinks.
You can argue that users can always modify
/etc/udev/rules.d/devfs.rules directly,
but I think a user can mess up his/her system doing so.
So I suggest that devfs.rules should be rid of
rules creating hd* symlinks and such rules should
be put into /etc/udev/compat*.rules.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 310125-done) by bugs.debian.org; 22 May 2005 00:37:06 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat May 21 17:37:06 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from attila.bofh.it [213.92.8.2] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DZeSo-00021I-00; Sat, 21 May 2005 17:37:06 -0700
Received: by attila.bofh.it (Postfix, from userid 10)
id AFEAF5F811; Sun, 22 May 2005 02:37:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wonderland.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 3CC5E1C3A0; Sun, 22 May 2005 02:36:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 02:36:59 +0200
To: Ken Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#310125: udev: compat*.rules should have hd* symlink rule
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On May 21, Ken Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I use udev with devfs-style naming scheme,
> I wish not to have /dev/hd* symlinks.
> I don't believe these symlinks are vital to system bootup.
No, but most applications freak out if they are not present.
This can be argued both ways, but changing it at this point without
risking to break installed systems would be too messy to be worth it.
--=20
ciao,
Marco
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCj9QrFGfw2OHuP7ERArx0AKCmoPo5Q0D6xPU6OcVVkuQQ/uLZNQCgguwP
Y12t1Ij1pJpuJ/2sOPqhyCc=
=Uznl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--tKW2IUtsqtDRztdT--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
