On Jan 7, 2013 8:08 PM, "Mark Knecht" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:37:05 -0800 > > Mark Knecht <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Now, my point is that change to /dev/srX was the root cause is FUD. It > >> isn't the root cause of this change because it didn't change on my > >> systems. All I know is that ID_PATH (from the old file) used to work > >> and no longer does. Whatever is responsible for creating that, likely > >> some portion of the kernel, changed the value and created a need to > >> modify how udev looks at the system. Is it a bug? I don't know. It's > >> just the way it is. > > > > > > It's not a bug as /dev/dvd is a mere convenience for the user - a > > nickname if you will. You are highly unlikely to find a standards doc > > of any kind stating the symlink should be there. Which means if it's > > not there, you get to make your own convenient nicknames. > > > > /dev/harddrive has never existed, right? Same with /dev/dvd and > > friends. make them if you want, but you can't expect them to be there > > and their absence is not a bug. > > > > Obviously someone left them out of the rules files. Maybe they had a > > reason, maybe they got lazy. Either way you get to add your own rules > > to get the names YOU want. > > > > It really is as simple as that, don't overthink this one. > > > > > > -- > > Alan McKinnon > > [email protected] > > > > > > Alan, > While I don't completely disagree with your POV, let's at least > agree that it is nothing other than your POV. I have a different one, > but as it's mine it's clearly of little interest or value. > > I really don't see why I'm the one getting banged on here but > that's life sometimes. I saw a problem for a couple of months. It > frustrated me but not enough to do anything about it. Solving it > finally bubbled up high enough on my list that I finally asked if > others were having the same problem. (which they were, and which they > also considered a problem) Before anyone had actually answered me I > had posted one way that folks who cared could fix it. I thought I was > doing the community a small service by getting a little bit of > technically positive info out there. I guess not in this case. > > Sorry for wasting bandwidth. I suspect it's time for me to > unsubscribe and just read gentoo-user in a list somewhere. Sad, but > flotsam & jetsam I suppose... > > Over an out, > Mark >
Eh. Please stick around. Udev is a polarizing issue wherever it pops up.
