On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:21:27PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote: > This flip-flopping is, AFAIK, more the fault of the newer kernel then > the fault of udev. If the kernel would always load the modules in the > same order then udev would probably assign the device nodes in a > consistent manner.
I disagree. Udev is responsible for creating device nodes. It should remember what devices nodes it has made in the past for different devices, and recreate them the same way in the futuer. Yes, this could mean that if a webcam is video0 and a TV card is video1 that if the webcam is not connected there will be no video0, but that would be fine. Over the life of a box, I could see that there may be videos starting with video20. The only problem with this is that we enumerate drives with letters instead of numbers. This whole udev mess, and devfs before it, was to address the rampant growth in device nodes/names. It seems to have brought with it a whole slew of its own problems. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
