Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Matt Burgess wrote: > >> Obviously, this is all pretty academic for me; if I'd have been >> using or otherwise needing the by-path symlinks, I would have >> noticed their disappearance in udev-182. The only reason I noticed >> they were missing now is because of xinglp's report. Whilst I can >> understand the use cases for by-uuid and by-label, I can't >> immediately think of a use for by-path, and as no one else in >> LFS-land has reported this before then I guess we can just chalk >> this one up as a curiosity for now :-) > > That's my thought too. It would be a 'nice to have' from a > consistency point of view, but I don't see a need that applications > depend on.
Agreed; I don't think it's worth a ton of effort to fix again. I might still send something to systemd-devel, seeing what they think about adding a separate layer for the ata* bus number, but ... eh, probably not. They'll probably just go for the perfect solution (as in, the enemy of the good solution, as standard for udev these days :-) ), and do nothing until "someone" (else!) fixes the ata transport layer in the kernel.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
