On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 04:32:45PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Greg KH (greg@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > > The problem is more or less this: > > > > > > - Without a new device naming standard that offers persistent names, > > > what really does it gain you? > > > > I know, and I agree. Well, I like my pretty, tiny /dev tree, but that's > > just me :) > > > > And I'm trying to move toward getting such a standard, but the people > > who are supposed to be taking the next step, seem to have disappeared > > again. > > > > Time to go kick some DCL[1] members around again... > > Well, I'm not sure that the need for new, persistent, device names > is necessarily driven by DCL requirements (or CGL, for that matter.) It's not driven by it at all. But it did fall out of them. So osdl created the device_naming mailing list for all of us to try to figure it all out. Hopefully suse comes back with a revised proposal in a decent ammount of time. thanks, greg k-h
