#2057: Udev-122 ------------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Reporter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Owner: [email protected] Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: 7.0 Component: Book | Version: SVN Severity: normal | Resolution: Keywords: | ------------------------------------------+--------------------------------- Comment (by LydianKnight):
Replying to [comment:25 Bryan Kadzban]: > You don't mind if, while you're running through CLFS's section 11.13, you don't know what name the card will have when you do boot? > > I would definitely mind. But maybe that's just me. :-) I have to admit you have a point ;) All my machines, whether it's a laptop or a desktop machine only have a single ethernet port and in the case of my laptop, a wireless adapter, so I don't have to face the plethora of situations a user with a server machine or just a machine with several network adapters have, although I think the vast majority of users won't have more than one network adapter, wired+wireless at best (setting up a network connection over an IR beam seems quite strange for me even if the kernel has some facilities for it... and that's not the common rule (I suppose)), with bluetooth, I couldn't say... Anyway, the 'rule' I tend to follow is to take a quick look at the /sys hierarchy, and after I've found something interesting, I run udevtest with the desired parameter to inspect some of the capabilities and information for a given adapter (same case as the naming for a CDRW drive, for example) > Maybe none of that is needed in most cases. But I've never liked the 80/20 rule. :-P Maybe my point of view sounded a bit selfish but that wasn't my intention, although I think the best option would be to 'prepare' the underlying infrastructure in terms of device configuration, but let the users be the ones who give the final touch to the configuration, I mean... we could add some text about the /sys hierarchy among some examples of current network device naming, how to properly modifying a written rule to add some of their devices, given some of the 'major' distributions just do a copy'n'paste of the host rules or part of them (but frankly speaking, would be nice to see this effort reaching a stable solution for all, no other distro seems to have reached a proper solution (at least debian like it's mentioned) and hey, that would definitely be a great point for LFS) > This seems to be what we did in the 6.2 book (http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.2/chapter07/network.html for instance)? Note all the exceptions below the example rules; that list is longer now. Should we keep that list in the book (including additions to it), or expect the user to find it on their own? Or not support that hardware (which I think is equivalent to "expect the user to find it on their own")? Or something else? With the proper instructions (like I have mentioned before) I don't see why a LFS user can't find the correct names for his/her network devices, we're not asking users to patch/sed some lines of code in a given file to be able to accomodate their purposes, but to inspect a bit their new system to customize it a bit more Anyway, it's just an oppinion (and I'm thrilling to see a final decision on this) :) Julio -- Ticket URL: <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/2057#comment:26> LFS Trac <http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/> Linux From Scratch: Your Distro, Your Rules. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
