[gentoo-user] 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[gentoo-user] 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time to
dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one machine
but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this morning. Not a
single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd or any of the
other incantations that have existed forever.

First, this is udev doing (or not doing) this, correct?

As shown below hwinfo see the cdrom drive, and there are long existing
udev rules that appear to want to create the devices. These rules have
worked in the past but don't now.

Are others running Gentoo stable, and in this case udev-171-r9, seeing
this problem?

Anyone recognize what's wrong with the udev rules below, or does udev
no longer generate these devices at all? I understand that the
70-persistent-net.rules stuff has been 'removed'. Is this true for CDs
also or have I botched something up on all these machines?

Thanks in advance and please ask me to post anything else required.
I've gone through the latest Gentoo install docs and don't see that
I'm doing anything other than what they tell me to do but with udev in
such a state of flux I've obviously missed something.

Thanks,
Mark

c2stable rules.d # hwinfo --cdrom
67: SCSI a00.0: 10602 CD-ROM (DVD)
  [Created at block.249]
  Unique ID: KD9E.QuQg_05Xv13
  Parent ID: w7Y8.UKoiXLHVNY4
  SysFS ID: /class/block/sr0
  SysFS BusID: 10:0:0:0
  SysFS Device Link:
/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:0
  Hardware Class: cdrom
  Model: "Optiarc DVD RW AD-7241S"
  Vendor: "Optiarc"
  Device: "DVD RW AD-7241S"
  Revision: "1.03"
  Driver: "ata_piix", "sr"
  Driver Modules: "ata_piix"
  Device File: /dev/sr0 (/dev/sg2)
  Device Files: /dev/sr0, /dev/scd0, /dev/disk/by-id/ata-Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
  Device Number: block 11:0 (char 21:2)
  Features: CD-R, CD-RW, DVD, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-R DL, DVD+R, DVD+RW,
DVD+R DL, DVD-RAM, MRW, MRW-W
  Drive status: no medium
  Config Status: cfg=new, avail=yes, need=no, active=unknown
  Attached to: #25 (IDE interface)
  Drive Speed: 48



c2stable rules.d # cat 70-persistent-cd.rules
# This file was automatically generated by the /lib64/udev/write_cd_rules
# program, run by the cd-aliases-generator.rules rules file.
#
# You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
# line, and set the $GENERATED variable.

# DVD_RW_AD-7241S (pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0)
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrw",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="dvd",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="dvdrw",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"

# Virtual_Cdrom (pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:1:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:1)
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="BUFFALO_Virtual_Cdrom_00101007000912560-0:1",
SYMLINK+="cdrom1", ENV{GENERATED}="1"

# USB-SATA_Bridge (pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:1:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:1)
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="BUFFALO_USB-SATA_Bridge_00101007000912560",
SYMLINK+="cdrom2", ENV{GENERATED}="1"

c2stable rules.d #


mark@c2stable ~ $ cat /etc/fstab
# /etc/fstab: static file system information.
#
# noatime turns off atimes for increased performance (atimes normally aren't
# needed; notail increases performance of ReiserFS (at the expense of storage
# efficiency).  It's safe to drop the noatime options if you want and to
# switch between notail / tail freely.
#
# The root filesystem should have a pass number of either 0 or 1.
# All other filesystems should have a pass number of 0 or greater than 1.
#
# See the manpage fstab(5) for more information.
#

# <fs>                  <mountpoint>    <type>          <opts>
 <dump/pass>

# NOTE: If your BOOT partition is ReiserFS, add the notail option to opts.
LABEL=boot              /boot           ext2            noauto,noatime  1 2
#/dev/md126             /               ext3            noatime         0 1
LABEL=RAID1root         /               ext3            noatime         0 1

LABEL=swapA             none            swap            sw              0 0
LABEL=swapB             none            swap            sw              0 0
LABEL=swapC             none            swap            sw              0 0

/dev/cdrom              /mnt/cdrom      auto            noauto,ro,users 0 0

/dev/md6                /backups        ext3            noauto,rw,users 0 0

LABEL=VirtualMachines   /VirtualMachines        ext3
auto,rw,users   0 1
LABEL=ExtServerBackup   /mnt/ExtServerBackup    ext3
noauto,rw,users 0 0

#LABEL=VideoLib         /mnt/VideoLib           ext3
auto,rw,users 0 1
LABEL=VideoLib2         /mnt/VideoLib           ext4
auto,rw,users 0 1
#LABEL=VideoLib2                /mnt/VideoLib2          ext4
 auto,rw,users 0 1
LABEL=fastVM            /mnt/fastVM             ext4
auto,rw,discard,users 0 1

# glibc 2.2 and above expects tmpfs to be mounted at /dev/shm for
# POSIX shared memory (shm_open, shm_unlink).
# (tmpfs is a dynamically expandable/shrinkable ramdisk, and will
#  use almost no memory if not populated with files)
shm                     /dev/shm        tmpfs
nodev,nosuid,noexec     0 0
tmpfs                   /var/tmp/portage tmpfs          size=8G
         0 0


#Other things currently unused but still hanging around...
LABEL=extboot           /mnt/disasterROOT       ext2
noauto,rw,users 0 0
LABEL=extroot           /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
noauto,rw,users 0 0
LABEL=extpackages       /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
noauto,rw,users 0 0
LABEL=exthome           /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
noauto,rw,users 0 0
LABEL=extVM             /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
noauto,rw,users 0 0
LABEL=DirectVMBackup    /mnt/DirectVMBackup     ext3
noauto,rw,users 0 0

mark@c2stable ~ $

Re: [gentoo-user] 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[J. Roeleveld]

Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

>I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time to
>dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one machine
>but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this morning. Not a
>single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd or any of the
>other incantations that have existed forever.
>
>First, this is udev doing (or not doing) this, correct?
>
>As shown below hwinfo see the cdrom drive, and there are long existing
>udev rules that appear to want to create the devices. These rules have
>worked in the past but don't now.
>
>Are others running Gentoo stable, and in this case udev-171-r9, seeing
>this problem?
>
>Anyone recognize what's wrong with the udev rules below, or does udev
>no longer generate these devices at all? I understand that the
>70-persistent-net.rules stuff has been 'removed'. Is this true for CDs
>also or have I botched something up on all these machines?
>
>Thanks in advance and please ask me to post anything else required.
>I've gone through the latest Gentoo install docs and don't see that
>I'm doing anything other than what they tell me to do but with udev in
>such a state of flux I've obviously missed something.
>
>Thanks,
>Mark
>
>c2stable rules.d # hwinfo --cdrom
>67: SCSI a00.0: 10602 CD-ROM (DVD)
>  [Created at block.249]
>  Unique ID: KD9E.QuQg_05Xv13
>  Parent ID: w7Y8.UKoiXLHVNY4
>  SysFS ID: /class/block/sr0
>  SysFS BusID: 10:0:0:0
>  SysFS Device Link:
>/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:0
>  Hardware Class: cdrom
>  Model: "Optiarc DVD RW AD-7241S"
>  Vendor: "Optiarc"
>  Device: "DVD RW AD-7241S"
>  Revision: "1.03"
>  Driver: "ata_piix", "sr"
>  Driver Modules: "ata_piix"
>  Device File: /dev/sr0 (/dev/sg2)
>Device Files: /dev/sr0, /dev/scd0,
>/dev/disk/by-id/ata-Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
>  Device Number: block 11:0 (char 21:2)
>  Features: CD-R, CD-RW, DVD, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-R DL, DVD+R, DVD+RW,
>DVD+R DL, DVD-RAM, MRW, MRW-W
>  Drive status: no medium
>  Config Status: cfg=new, avail=yes, need=no, active=unknown
>  Attached to: #25 (IDE interface)
>  Drive Speed: 48
>
>
>
>c2stable rules.d # cat 70-persistent-cd.rules
># This file was automatically generated by the
>/lib64/udev/write_cd_rules
># program, run by the cd-aliases-generator.rules rules file.
>#
># You can modify it, as long as you keep each rule on a single
># line, and set the $GENERATED variable.
>
># DVD_RW_AD-7241S (pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0)
>SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
>ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
>ENV{GENERATED}="1"
>SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
>ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrw",
>ENV{GENERATED}="1"
>SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
>ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="dvd",
>ENV{GENERATED}="1"
>SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
>ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="dvdrw",
>ENV{GENERATED}="1"
>
># Virtual_Cdrom (pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:1:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:1)
>SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
>ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="BUFFALO_Virtual_Cdrom_00101007000912560-0:1",
>SYMLINK+="cdrom1", ENV{GENERATED}="1"
>
># USB-SATA_Bridge (pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:1:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:1)
>SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
>ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="BUFFALO_USB-SATA_Bridge_00101007000912560",
>SYMLINK+="cdrom2", ENV{GENERATED}="1"
>
>c2stable rules.d #
>
>
>mark@c2stable ~ $ cat /etc/fstab
># /etc/fstab: static file system information.
>#
># noatime turns off atimes for increased performance (atimes normally
>aren't
># needed; notail increases performance of ReiserFS (at the expense of
>storage
># efficiency).  It's safe to drop the noatime options if you want and
>to
># switch between notail / tail freely.
>#
># The root filesystem should have a pass number of either 0 or 1.
># All other filesystems should have a pass number of 0 or greater than
>1.
>#
># See the manpage fstab(5) for more information.
>#
>
># <fs>                  <mountpoint>    <type>          <opts>
> <dump/pass>
>
># NOTE: If your BOOT partition is ReiserFS, add the notail option to
>opts.
>LABEL=boot              /boot           ext2            noauto,noatime 
>1 2
>#/dev/md126             /               ext3            noatime        
>0 1
>LABEL=RAID1root         /               ext3            noatime        
>0 1
>
>LABEL=swapA             none            swap            sw             
>0 0
>LABEL=swapB             none            swap            sw             
>0 0
>LABEL=swapC             none            swap            sw             
>0 0
>
>/dev/cdrom              /mnt/cdrom      auto            noauto,ro,users
>0 0
>
>/dev/md6                /backups        ext3            noauto,rw,users
>0 0
>
>LABEL=VirtualMachines   /VirtualMachines        ext3
>auto,rw,users   0 1
>LABEL=ExtServerBackup   /mnt/ExtServerBackup    ext3
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>
>#LABEL=VideoLib         /mnt/VideoLib           ext3
>auto,rw,users 0 1
>LABEL=VideoLib2         /mnt/VideoLib           ext4
>auto,rw,users 0 1
>#LABEL=VideoLib2                /mnt/VideoLib2          ext4
> auto,rw,users 0 1
>LABEL=fastVM            /mnt/fastVM             ext4
>auto,rw,discard,users 0 1
>
># glibc 2.2 and above expects tmpfs to be mounted at /dev/shm for
># POSIX shared memory (shm_open, shm_unlink).
># (tmpfs is a dynamically expandable/shrinkable ramdisk, and will
>#  use almost no memory if not populated with files)
>shm                     /dev/shm        tmpfs
>nodev,nosuid,noexec     0 0
>tmpfs                   /var/tmp/portage tmpfs          size=8G
>         0 0
>
>
>#Other things currently unused but still hanging around...
>LABEL=extboot           /mnt/disasterROOT       ext2
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>LABEL=extroot           /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>LABEL=extpackages       /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>LABEL=exthome           /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>LABEL=extVM             /mnt/disasterROOT       ext3
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>LABEL=DirectVMBackup    /mnt/DirectVMBackup     ext3
>noauto,rw,users 0 0
>
>mark@c2stable ~ $

Mark.

Not seen this behaviour myself. But I also only have one machine with a dvd-drive in it. And that one has not been updated in several months. (It's scheduled for a complete rebuild)

Did you try temporarily removing that rules-file to see if it then comes up properly during a reboot?
Maybe that file is now causing it to disappear?

Are you also certain you have all the necessary drivers included in your kernel config?

Kind regards

Joost
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-user] 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Randy Barlow]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/05/2013 02:53 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time
> to dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one
> machine but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this
> morning. Not a single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd
> or any of the other incantations that have existed forever.
> 
> First, this is udev doing (or not doing) this, correct?
> 
> As shown below hwinfo see the cdrom drive, and there are long
> existing udev rules that appear to want to create the devices.
> These rules have worked in the past but don't now.
> 
> Are others running Gentoo stable, and in this case udev-171-r9,
> seeing this problem?
> 
> Anyone recognize what's wrong with the udev rules below, or does
> udev no longer generate these devices at all? I understand that
> the 70-persistent-net.rules stuff has been 'removed'. Is this true
> for CDs also or have I botched something up on all these machines?
> 
> Thanks in advance and please ask me to post anything else
> required. I've gone through the latest Gentoo install docs and
> don't see that I'm doing anything other than what they tell me to
> do but with udev in such a state of flux I've obviously missed
> something.

I don't know what the deal with all of this is, but I also noticed
this recently. One thing I did find was that I could find my disks in
/dev/disk, for example Star Wars:

$ ls /dev/disk/by-label/
A_NEW_HOPE

$ equery l udev
 * Searching for udev ...
[IP-] [  ] sys-fs/udev-171-r9:0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlDojxcACgkQw3vjPfF7QfXNxgCff/2kWz4NcPLabU1VSTiKgte7
9jAAnAk5E4htxjm+au/QjOVYGJ6jayIw
=7745
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time to
> dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one machine
> but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this morning. Not a
> single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd or any of the
> other incantations that have existed forever.
>
<SNIP>

OK, this is solved using udevadm and changing the
70-persistent-cd.rules file to key off a different identifier.

Old way:
#SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"

New way:
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_MODEL}=="Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"

c2stable ~ # udevadm info --query=all --name=/dev/sr0
P: /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:0/block/sr0
N: sr0
S: scd0
S: disk/by-id/ata-Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
S: cdrom
S: cdrw
S: dvd
S: dvdrw
E: UDEV_LOG=3
E: DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:0/block/sr0
E: MAJOR=11
E: MINOR=0
E: DEVNAME=/dev/sr0
E: DEVTYPE=disk
E: SUBSYSTEM=block
E: ID_CDROM=1
E: ID_CDROM_CD=1
E: ID_CDROM_CD_R=1
E: ID_CDROM_CD_RW=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD_R=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD_RW=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD_RAM=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD_PLUS_R=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD_PLUS_RW=1
E: ID_CDROM_DVD_PLUS_R_DL=1
E: ID_CDROM_MRW=1
E: ID_CDROM_MRW_W=1
E: ID_ATA=1
E: ID_TYPE=cd
E: ID_BUS=ata
E: ID_MODEL=Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
E: ID_MODEL_ENC=Optiarc\x20DVD\x20RW\x20AD-7241S\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20
E: ID_REVISION=1.03
E: ID_SERIAL=Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
E: ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_PM=1
E: ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_PM_ENABLED=1
E: ID_ATA_SATA=1
E: ID_ATA_SATA_SIGNAL_RATE_GEN1=1
E: GENERATED=1
E: UDISKS_PRESENTATION_NOPOLICY=0
E: DEVLINKS=/dev/scd0 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
/dev/cdrom /dev/cdrw /dev/dvd /dev/dvdrw
E: TAGS=:udev-acl:

c2stable ~ #

Maybe this post will save someone else some time.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM, J. Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Mark.
>
> Not seen this behaviour myself. But I also only have one machine with a dvd-drive in it. And that one has not been updated in several months. (It's scheduled for a complete rebuild)
>
> Did you try temporarily removing that rules-file to see if it then comes up properly during a reboot?
> Maybe that file is now causing it to disappear?
>
> Are you also certain you have all the necessary drivers included in your kernel config?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Joost
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>

All fixed. See my other post.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[David M. Fellows]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:44:07 -0800 
Mark Knecht wrote -
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time to
> > dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one machine
> > but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this morning. Not a
> > single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd or any of the
> > other incantations that have existed forever.
> >
> <SNIP>
> 
> OK, this is solved using udevadm and changing the
> 70-persistent-cd.rules file to key off a different identifier.
> 
> Old way:
> #SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
> ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
> ENV{GENERATED}="1"
> 
> New way:
> SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
> ENV{ID_MODEL}=="Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
> ENV{GENERATED}="1"


I had the same problem. Came to a different solution. Following for 
your amusement and edifcation are my notes taken as I debugged.
------------
==2012-11-26

udev is not creating /dev/cdrom symlinks so all my scripts that use
/dev/cdrom  or attempt to moun /dev/cdrom fail.
Not sure when this actually started happening. I last burned a dvd on Oct
23 so it was OK then. /etc/udev/roules.d/70-persistent-cdrom.rules is dated
Oct 30. It looks plausible.

Documentation implies that removing said file and rebooting will cause udev
to recreate it "correctly". I was unable to cause it to be rebuilt,
correctly or otherwise, in this manner.  

==2012-11-27
Created /dev/cdrom -> /dev/sr0 symlink manually because burn script wants
to mount /dev/cdrom on /mnt/cdrom.

This time the backup copy/burn went flawlessly. I think udev is also
causing problems.

70-persistent-cd.rules may be wrong for my current kernel
I don't think the ID_PATH has scsi as a path anymore.

==2012-12-04
I syncd on Friday(Dec 1), but did not do emerge.

Doing the regular upgrade emerge.
  new virtual/udev-171  I guess this is prep for the proposed udev fork.
  open-rc goes from 0.11.5 to 0.11.6  This might bear on cd.rules issue.
  But apparently not, there seems to be no change.

  No config files
  revdep-rebuild was clean
  udev should be restarted. (reboot might be better)

On reboot 70-persistent-net.rules was created. It was the same as the old
one. No cd rules file.

I then inserted my memorex usb stick that has a "cdrom" partition on it.
Lo! a 70-persistent-cd.rules file appeared with 2 lines for the memorex.
plus /dev/cdrom /dev/cdrw symlinks to sr1.

If I pull the stick sr1, cdrom, and cdrw go away. They come back if I
reinsert it. 70*cd.rules remains unchanged.

Note: Running udevadm control --log-priority=info
puts copious amounts of stuff into /var/log/everything/current
Debug even more
Remember to reset it to err when not experimenting.

Findings:

/lib/udev/rules.d/75-cd-aliases-generator.rules
invokes

/lib/udev/write_cd_rules 
to actually write the /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-cd.rules file.

for usb cdroms it calls it with "by-id" as an arg. Non usb device no arg 
which defaults to "by-path" in the callee.

by-path requires $ID_PATH variable to have a value. Turns out that 
   udevadm info --query=all --name=/dev/sr0
shows that for the built -in drive there is no BY_PATH variable set.
(it is set for sr1 the usb stick!)
So it looks like the write_cd_rules script bails with return code of 1
without actually writing anything.

Solution to try:
Copy /lib/udev/rules.d/75-cd-aliases-generator.rules to /etc/udev/rules.d 
and edit it there to invoke /write_cd_rules with "by-id" in both cases 
and see what happens.

==2012-12-05
Yess!
Did above and it "just worked".
----------------
My 70-persistent-cd.rules file now contains:

# HL-DT-ST_DVDRAM_GH22NS70 ()
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*", ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="HL-DT-ST_DVDRAM_GH22NS70_K24B5GJ2632", SYMLINK+="cdrom", ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*", ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="HL-DT-ST_DVDRAM_GH22NS70_K24B5GJ2632", SYMLINK+="cdrw", ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*", ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="HL-DT-ST_DVDRAM_GH22NS70_K24B5GJ2632", SYMLINK+="dvd", ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*", ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="HL-DT-ST_DVDRAM_GH22NS70_K24B5GJ2632", SYMLINK+="dvdrw", ENV{GENERATED}="1"

# TD_ID_UFD_301B (pci-0000:00:1d.0-usb-0:1.2:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0)
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*", ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="Memorex_TD_ID_UFD_301B_07630E9000EB-0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom1", ENV{GENERATED}="1"
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*", ENV{ID_SERIAL}=="Memorex_TD_ID_UFD_301B_07630E9000EB-0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrw1", ENV{GENERATED}="1"

Modifying 75-cd-aliases-generator.rules has an advantage over Mark's solution 
in that it will automatically catch all installed cdrom- type devices and it 
should add the dvd rules as appropriate to the device's capabilities.

Dave F

Re: [gentoo-user] 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time to
> dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one machine
> but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this morning. Not a
> single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd or any of the
> other incantations that have existed forever.
>
> First, this is udev doing (or not doing) this, correct?
>
> As shown below hwinfo see the cdrom drive, and there are long existing
> udev rules that appear to want to create the devices. These rules have
> worked in the past but don't now.
>
> Are others running Gentoo stable, and in this case udev-171-r9, seeing
> this problem?
>
> Anyone recognize what's wrong with the udev rules below, or does udev
> no longer generate these devices at all? I understand that the
> 70-persistent-net.rules stuff has been 'removed'. Is this true for CDs
> also or have I botched something up on all these machines?
>
> Thanks in advance and please ask me to post anything else required.
> I've gone through the latest Gentoo install docs and don't see that
> I'm doing anything other than what they tell me to do but with udev in
> such a state of flux I've obviously missed something.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> <<<SNIP>>>
>

On my rig for a long time now, I have used the sr0 device.  My DVD/CD
burning app, k3b, uses it for the CD/DVD drives.  It works.  From my
understanding this switched quite some time ago but can't recall the
reasoning behind it. 

I don't have /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore.  Everything so far has
worked tho.  It just uses /dev/sr0 instead. 

Hope that helps. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2511 bytes --]

On Saturday 05 Jan 2013 20:44:07 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think I touched on this a couple of weeks ago but never had time to
> > dig in. At that time I thought this problem was only on one machine
> > but now I see it's on every machine I've looked at this morning. Not a
> > single machine has /dev/cdrom anymore, nor /dev/dvd or any of the
> > other incantations that have existed forever.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> OK, this is solved using udevadm and changing the
> 70-persistent-cd.rules file to key off a different identifier.
> 
> Old way:
> #SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
> ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
> ENV{GENERATED}="1"
> 
> New way:
> SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
> ENV{ID_MODEL}=="Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
> ENV{GENERATED}="1"
> 
> c2stable ~ # udevadm info --query=all --name=/dev/sr0
> P:
> /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:0/block/
> sr0 N: sr0
> S: scd0
> S: disk/by-id/ata-Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
> S: cdrom
> S: cdrw
> S: dvd
> S: dvdrw
> E: UDEV_LOG=3
> E:
> DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:
> 0/block/sr0 E: MAJOR=11
> E: MINOR=0
> E: DEVNAME=/dev/sr0
> E: DEVTYPE=disk
> E: SUBSYSTEM=block
> E: ID_CDROM=1
> E: ID_CDROM_CD=1
> E: ID_CDROM_CD_R=1
> E: ID_CDROM_CD_RW=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD_R=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD_RW=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD_RAM=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD_PLUS_R=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD_PLUS_RW=1
> E: ID_CDROM_DVD_PLUS_R_DL=1
> E: ID_CDROM_MRW=1
> E: ID_CDROM_MRW_W=1
> E: ID_ATA=1
> E: ID_TYPE=cd
> E: ID_BUS=ata
> E: ID_MODEL=Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
> E:
> ID_MODEL_ENC=Optiarc\x20DVD\x20RW\x20AD-7241S\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\
> x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20\x20 E: ID_REVISION=1.03
> E: ID_SERIAL=Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
> E: ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_PM=1
> E: ID_ATA_FEATURE_SET_PM_ENABLED=1
> E: ID_ATA_SATA=1
> E: ID_ATA_SATA_SIGNAL_RATE_GEN1=1
> E: GENERATED=1
> E: UDISKS_PRESENTATION_NOPOLICY=0
> E: DEVLINKS=/dev/scd0 /dev/disk/by-id/ata-Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S
> /dev/cdrom /dev/cdrw /dev/dvd /dev/dvdrw
> E: TAGS=:udev-acl:
> 
> c2stable ~ #
> 
> Maybe this post will save someone else some time.

Thanks Mark, but why do we have to make this file changes ourselves?  Isn't it 
a bug?

PS.  I also have cd & dvd /dev links missing.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Maybe this post will save someone else some time.
>
> Thanks Mark, but why do we have to make this file changes ourselves?  Isn't it
> a bug?
>
> PS.  I also have cd & dvd /dev links missing.
> --
> Regards,
> Mick

I'd say it's a bug. Waiting for it to get officially fixed meant my
wife couldn't easily watch a dvd without starting to understand /dev
which I didn't think was fair to her. I'm not suggesting what I did
was 'the best way', etc.

Anyway, I suspect between my and Dave's posts some folks will be able
to make things work a bit better until an official solution shows up.
In my now nearly 10 years with Gentoo I'd never spent 5 minutes
looking at what udev provides. So many people knock it recently. I
thought it time to learn a little before it disappears.

Cheers,
Mar

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> Maybe this post will save someone else some time.
>> Thanks Mark, but why do we have to make this file changes ourselves?  Isn't it
>> a bug?
>>
>> PS.  I also have cd & dvd /dev links missing.
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Mick
> I'd say it's a bug. Waiting for it to get officially fixed meant my
> wife couldn't easily watch a dvd without starting to understand /dev
> which I didn't think was fair to her. I'm not suggesting what I did
> was 'the best way', etc.
>
> Anyway, I suspect between my and Dave's posts some folks will be able
> to make things work a bit better until an official solution shows up.
> In my now nearly 10 years with Gentoo I'd never spent 5 minutes
> looking at what udev provides. So many people knock it recently. I
> thought it time to learn a little before it disappears.
>
> Cheers,
> Mar
>
>


I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.  I don't have, and have
not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.  Since it was changed
on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug. 

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.  I don't have, and have
> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.  Since it was changed
> on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug.
>
> Dale


Might be true but how about digging up some references that this was
done on purpose. It makes little sense to me that if someone did this
on purpose, breaking lots of old scripts, leaving broken udev rules
laying about and just assuming everyone would figure it out without so
much and a news item then I'd say it was done pretty badly.

Again, if it truly was 'on purpose' as you say then that's OK, but
let's not create too much false history here. In my mind it's just as
reasonable that it's just a mistake or someone that was overlooked,
but I'm totally open to you showing us what we all missed.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[William Kenworthy]

On 07/01/13 09:44, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>
>> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
>> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
>> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.  I don't have, and have
>> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
>> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
>> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.  Since it was changed
>> on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug.
>>
>> Dale
> 
> 
> Might be true but how about digging up some references that this was
> done on purpose. It makes little sense to me that if someone did this
> on purpose, breaking lots of old scripts, leaving broken udev rules
> laying about and just assuming everyone would figure it out without so
> much and a news item then I'd say it was done pretty badly.
> 
> Again, if it truly was 'on purpose' as you say then that's OK, but
> let's not create too much false history here. In my mind it's just as
> reasonable that it's just a mistake or someone that was overlooked,
> but I'm totally open to you showing us what we all missed.
> 
Seems like the cabal has been busy again ... its not a bug but a feature!

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=19b66dc57cce27175ff421c4c3a37e4a491b9c01

Also some hits on gentoo forums etc which imply that when actually
merged, the rules file was not included..

This did happen awhile back and I just moved to /dev/sr0 and got on with
life so didnt go into it in too much detail.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM, William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On 07/01/13 09:44, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
>>> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
>>> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.  I don't have, and have
>>> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
>>> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
>>> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.  Since it was changed
>>> on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>
>>
>> Might be true but how about digging up some references that this was
>> done on purpose. It makes little sense to me that if someone did this
>> on purpose, breaking lots of old scripts, leaving broken udev rules
>> laying about and just assuming everyone would figure it out without so
>> much and a news item then I'd say it was done pretty badly.
>>
>> Again, if it truly was 'on purpose' as you say then that's OK, but
>> let's not create too much false history here. In my mind it's just as
>> reasonable that it's just a mistake or someone that was overlooked,
>> but I'm totally open to you showing us what we all missed.
>>
> Seems like the cabal has been busy again ... its not a bug but a feature!
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=19b66dc57cce27175ff421c4c3a37e4a491b9c01
>
> Also some hits on gentoo forums etc which imply that when actually
> merged, the rules file was not included..
>
> This did happen awhile back and I just moved to /dev/sr0 and got on with
> life so didnt go into it in too much detail.
>
> BillK
>
>
>

Bill,
   From the link you provided:

"From now on, udev will only create /dev/cdrom for the first optical
drive, and if the drive is capable /dev/dvd. No other devices will
get any compatibility symlinks or enumerated device names like cdrom1,
cdrom2, and so on. The /dev/cdrom and /dev/dvd links have by default
a negative link priority, which will cause them to be overwritten by
any other device which clains the same names with already existing
udev rules."

According to the above info Kay didn't single-handedly eliminate
/dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd.

I understand lots of folks are quite unhappy with udev and some
of the decisions Kay has been taking. (I do real LKML!) :-)

Anyway, I'm not saying it isn't on purpose.

Cheers,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

William Kenworthy wrote:
> On 07/01/13 09:44, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
>>> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
>>> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.  I don't have, and have
>>> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
>>> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
>>> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.  Since it was changed
>>> on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>
>> Might be true but how about digging up some references that this was
>> done on purpose. It makes little sense to me that if someone did this
>> on purpose, breaking lots of old scripts, leaving broken udev rules
>> laying about and just assuming everyone would figure it out without so
>> much and a news item then I'd say it was done pretty badly.
>>
>> Again, if it truly was 'on purpose' as you say then that's OK, but
>> let's not create too much false history here. In my mind it's just as
>> reasonable that it's just a mistake or someone that was overlooked,
>> but I'm totally open to you showing us what we all missed.
>>
> Seems like the cabal has been busy again ... its not a bug but a feature!
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=19b66dc57cce27175ff421c4c3a37e4a491b9c01
>
> Also some hits on gentoo forums etc which imply that when actually
> merged, the rules file was not included..
>
> This did happen awhile back and I just moved to /dev/sr0 and got on with
> life so didnt go into it in too much detail.
>
> BillK
>

This is not Gentoo specific but I found this in a search that is just
getting started:

http://rlworkman.net/howtos/libata-switchover

So, it did happen when switching from old IDE based drivers to the
newer, some claim improved, PATA/SATA drivers.  It appears the kernel
started this but still searching for confirmation.

Like Bill, when it was changed, I just updated the device information in
my programs and went on.  It was the new way and it seemed it was going
to be around for a good long while.  It looks like people who have
created scripts are going to have to fire up vi or nano and do a little
updating. 

Going to search some more to get a better source. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> William Kenworthy wrote:
>> On 07/01/13 09:44, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <SNIP>
>>>> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
>>>> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
>>>> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.  I don't have, and have
>>>> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
>>>> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
>>>> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.  Since it was changed
>>>> on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug.
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>> Might be true but how about digging up some references that this was
>>> done on purpose. It makes little sense to me that if someone did this
>>> on purpose, breaking lots of old scripts, leaving broken udev rules
>>> laying about and just assuming everyone would figure it out without so
>>> much and a news item then I'd say it was done pretty badly.
>>>
>>> Again, if it truly was 'on purpose' as you say then that's OK, but
>>> let's not create too much false history here. In my mind it's just as
>>> reasonable that it's just a mistake or someone that was overlooked,
>>> but I'm totally open to you showing us what we all missed.
>>>
>> Seems like the cabal has been busy again ... its not a bug but a feature!
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/hotplug/udev.git;a=commit;h=19b66dc57cce27175ff421c4c3a37e4a491b9c01
>>
>> Also some hits on gentoo forums etc which imply that when actually
>> merged, the rules file was not included..
>>
>> This did happen awhile back and I just moved to /dev/sr0 and got on with
>> life so didnt go into it in too much detail.
>>
>> BillK
>>
> This is not Gentoo specific but I found this in a search that is just
> getting started:
>
> http://rlworkman.net/howtos/libata-switchover
>
> So, it did happen when switching from old IDE based drivers to the
> newer, some claim improved, PATA/SATA drivers.  It appears the kernel
> started this but still searching for confirmation.
>
> Like Bill, when it was changed, I just updated the device information in
> my programs and went on.  It was the new way and it seemed it was going
> to be around for a good long while.  It looks like people who have
> created scripts are going to have to fire up vi or nano and do a little
> updating. 
>
> Going to search some more to get a better source. 
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


This links goes to a specific post in the thread.  Don't scroll or you
will have to dig.  The one to look far if it messes up is the post by
NeddySeagoon. 

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6362608.html#6362608

More info:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kernel-config.xml#doc_chap3

According to one page I found, this happened several years ago so no
idea how anyone missed it this long.  It was discussed on this very list
but my archives don't go back that far.  I figure if I don't run into a
problem in a year or so, I missed it which is a odd thing of itself
since I usually find every problem there is.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> This links goes to a specific post in the thread.  Don't scroll or you
> will have to dig.  The one to look far if it messes up is the post by
> NeddySeagoon.
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6362608.html#6362608
>
> More info:
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kernel-config.xml#doc_chap3
>
> According to one page I found, this happened several years ago so no
> idea how anyone missed it this long.  It was discussed on this very list
> but my archives don't go back that far.  I figure if I don't run into a
> problem in a year or so, I missed it which is a odd thing of itself
> since I usually find every problem there is.  ;-)
>
> Dale

Dale,
   Thanks for digging that up. It's interesting, but I don't think
it's exactly relevant. TTBOMK I've used /dev/sdX and /dev/srX for as
long as it's been available. Most of my machines these days were all
built after the change so it's all they've ever known. Maybe one
machine used /dev/dhX.

   However, that's not the issue I'm looking for background on. You
seemed to say earlier that it's a widely known thing that udev links
to /dev/srX are not only broken but also bogus. You don't use them.
Others have seen the same issue. I've seen the udev links not work for
a couple of months.

   However from what I can tell you don't use them
1) because they broke, and
2) like me you never took the time to determine _why_ they broke.

   I was in the same place until yesterday when I decided to dig in a
little bit. Now, my point is that while the old links created in old
rules files are broken (and they are) it's not clear to me that udev
is broken. Clear Kay Sievers (sp?) still assumes they work although
they will automatically only do /dev/sr0. The use is responsible for
creating others if they need them. (Which 99% of folks will not, so
basically, it still works.)

   What appears to have actually broken is the old PCI path
nomeclature, and not 'udev proper', as best I can tell.

   Anyway, it's well known in the known universe that you are mad at
udev so I don't expect you're looking for ways to make this stuff work
and I do appreciate you digging the stuff up that you found. Thanks.

Over and out,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> This links goes to a specific post in the thread.  Don't scroll or you
>> will have to dig.  The one to look far if it messes up is the post by
>> NeddySeagoon.
>>
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6362608.html#6362608
>>
>> More info:
>>
>> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kernel-config.xml#doc_chap3
>>
>> According to one page I found, this happened several years ago so no
>> idea how anyone missed it this long.  It was discussed on this very list
>> but my archives don't go back that far.  I figure if I don't run into a
>> problem in a year or so, I missed it which is a odd thing of itself
>> since I usually find every problem there is.  ;-)
>>
>> Dale
> Dale,
>    Thanks for digging that up. It's interesting, but I don't think
> it's exactly relevant. TTBOMK I've used /dev/sdX and /dev/srX for as
> long as it's been available. Most of my machines these days were all
> built after the change so it's all they've ever known. Maybe one
> machine used /dev/dhX.
>
>    However, that's not the issue I'm looking for background on. You
> seemed to say earlier that it's a widely known thing that udev links
> to /dev/srX are not only broken but also bogus. You don't use them.
> Others have seen the same issue. I've seen the udev links not work for
> a couple of months.
>
>    However from what I can tell you don't use them
> 1) because they broke, and
> 2) like me you never took the time to determine _why_ they broke.
>
>    I was in the same place until yesterday when I decided to dig in a
> little bit. Now, my point is that while the old links created in old
> rules files are broken (and they are) it's not clear to me that udev
> is broken. Clear Kay Sievers (sp?) still assumes they work although
> they will automatically only do /dev/sr0. The use is responsible for
> creating others if they need them. (Which 99% of folks will not, so
> basically, it still works.)
>
>    What appears to have actually broken is the old PCI path
> nomeclature, and not 'udev proper', as best I can tell.
>
>    Anyway, it's well known in the known universe that you are mad at
> udev so I don't expect you're looking for ways to make this stuff work
> and I do appreciate you digging the stuff up that you found. Thanks.
>
> Over and out,
> Mark
>
>

I think you misunderstand or I didn't make myself clear.  I'm not saying
it was udev that did this.  I am pretty sure it was the kernel.  All
this happened when people with older IDE drives, myself included on my
old machine, had to switch to the new drivers and devices.  Before the
change, old IDE drives and CD/DVD drives were given hd* devices and udev
made a link to that with /dev/cdrom or dvd or whatever for optical
devices which is what you seem to expect now.  The reason udev did that
was for it to be consistent which I have no problem with .  When the
kernel folks changed this, they also changed it from /dev/cdrom and
/dev/dvd to /dev/sr0.  From my understanding, all optical devices such
as CD and DVD readers/burners are supposed to be sr0.  I know k3b
updated theirs too.  I seem to recall I had to run a unstable version
for a bit because the older version didn't have the code to see sr* devices.

I never said anything was broke, just that it was changed.  There was
several things that was changed at about the same time that were related
and this was just one of them.  Another was the change from /dev/hdXX to
/dev/sdXX for ALL hard drives.  This change happened even if you was
using the old IDE drives.  As I understand it, /dev/hdxx is no longer
supported on current kernels.  All hard drives are /dev/sdxx and optical
drives are /dev/sr0(1,2,3,4 etc). 

Also, I didn't remove anything. It was changed by the kernel which also
lead to udev changing what it did.  Again, as much as I dislike what
udev is planning, I never said udev did this one.  I'm pretty sure this
was all started with the kernel devs.  The udev folks just followed along. 

The biggest thing I recall is everyone with IDE drives having to update
the kernel config, edit fstab and grub or lilo before rebooting.  This
was discussed on this list and I don't recall much fuss except for
having to change it and update everything.  It was sort of a one time
thing and had a long term goal.  All hard drives are sdxx and optical
devices are srx.  All this happened when I was on my old rig which was
at least a few years ago. 

Does that make more sense now? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

[gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Grant Edwards]

On 2013-01-07, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.

It's been something like 6-8 years hasn't it?

> I don't have, and have
> not had, /dev/cdrom or dvd on this rig for a good while and it works.  I
> think this happened about the same time as the hard drive devices were
> changed from hd* to sd* even for old IDE drives.

IIRC, the IDE CDROM devices moved over to the SCSI subsystem some time
before IDE hard drives did -- but it's been a while...

> Since it was changed on purpose, I don't believe this is a bug. 

Yes, it was an intentional change.  I haven't seen a /dev/hd* device
for years and years.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I joined scientology
                                  at               at a garage sale!!
                              gmail.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-01-07, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that is a bug.  As I posted earlier, this was changed a
>> good while back.  There was a reason for it but I can't recall what it
>> was.  The new devices for CD/DVDs is /dev/sr*.
>
> It's been something like 6-8 years hasn't it?

IIRC the SATA interface has always labeled them as /dev/sdX /dev/srX.
Everything I've built using new hardware in the last 5 years has been
SATA based and I've not had a new machine with /dev/hdX in longer than
I can remember.

However, best I can tell, that has _nothing_ to do with why /dev/cdrom
/dev/dvd disappeared in the last couple of months. Remember, my
machines have all had /dev/srX.

Going back to my post with one of many solutions to this issue:

First - the old way that udev was recognizing the cdrw/dvd drive on my
system was via an ID_PATH value for the pci device:

#SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_PATH}=="pci-0000:00:1f.2-scsi-0:0:0:0", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"

However you will note that ID_PATH (the key used by udev) doesn't exist any more

c2stable ~ # udevadm info --query=all --name=/dev/sr0 | grep ID_PATH
c2stable ~ #


Best guess I have is that ID_PATH may have been changed to DEVPATH

c2stable ~ # udevadm info --query=all --name=/dev/sr0 | grep DEVPATH
E: DEVPATH=/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/ata11/host10/target10:0:0/10:0:0:0/block/sr0
c2stable ~ #

What I did was ask udev to identify by the drive's model number using ID_MODEL:

New way:
SUBSYSTEM=="block", ENV{ID_CDROM}=="?*",
ENV{ID_MODEL}=="Optiarc_DVD_RW_AD-7241S", SYMLINK+="cdrom",
ENV{GENERATED}="1"

A little playing around suggest you can use anything unique to the device.

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.

Just my views,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3286 bytes --]

On Monday 07 Jan 2013 07:35:32 Dale wrote:

> I think you misunderstand or I didn't make myself clear.  I'm not saying
> it was udev that did this.  I am pretty sure it was the kernel.  All
> this happened when people with older IDE drives, myself included on my
> old machine, had to switch to the new drivers and devices.  Before the
> change, old IDE drives and CD/DVD drives were given hd* devices and udev
> made a link to that with /dev/cdrom or dvd or whatever for optical
> devices which is what you seem to expect now.  The reason udev did that
> was for it to be consistent which I have no problem with .  When the
> kernel folks changed this, they also changed it from /dev/cdrom and
> /dev/dvd to /dev/sr0.  From my understanding, all optical devices such
> as CD and DVD readers/burners are supposed to be sr0.  I know k3b
> updated theirs too.  I seem to recall I had to run a unstable version
> for a bit because the older version didn't have the code to see sr*
> devices.
> 
> I never said anything was broke, just that it was changed.  There was
> several things that was changed at about the same time that were related
> and this was just one of them.  Another was the change from /dev/hdXX to
> /dev/sdXX for ALL hard drives.  This change happened even if you was
> using the old IDE drives.  As I understand it, /dev/hdxx is no longer
> supported on current kernels.  All hard drives are /dev/sdxx and optical
> drives are /dev/sr0(1,2,3,4 etc).
> 
> Also, I didn't remove anything. It was changed by the kernel which also
> lead to udev changing what it did.  Again, as much as I dislike what
> udev is planning, I never said udev did this one.  I'm pretty sure this
> was all started with the kernel devs.  The udev folks just followed along.
> 
> The biggest thing I recall is everyone with IDE drives having to update
> the kernel config, edit fstab and grub or lilo before rebooting.  This
> was discussed on this list and I don't recall much fuss except for
> having to change it and update everything.  It was sort of a one time
> thing and had a long term goal.  All hard drives are sdxx and optical
> devices are srx.  All this happened when I was on my old rig which was
> at least a few years ago.
> 
> Does that make more sense now?
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

I think that you are conflating two issues which are separate in terms of 
chronology at least.  Years ago we moved to libata and hdX changed to sdX.  
The udev confguration was updated at the time to link /dev/cd* and /dev/dvd* 
to srX.

More recently, the udev rules nomenclature changed.  The udev persistent-cd 
rules however was not changed.  I moved it, remerged stable udev and the file 
was not recreated.  So something in udev has changed and it no longer 
generates the persistent-cd rules.


BTW, pressing the touch sensitive button on the laptop to eject the CD won't 
work, neither will typing eject in a terminal:

$ eject
eject: tried to use `/mnt/cdrom' as device name but it is no block device
eject: unable to find or open device for: `cdrom'


So, eject is still looking for cdrom ...

Either all commands and legacy apps should update themselves, or I better 
follow Mark's suggestion?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:37:05 -0800
Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> 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
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:37:05 -0800
> Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> 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
> alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
>
>

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Michael Mol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2591 bytes --]

On Jan 7, 2013 8:08 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 09:37:05 -0800
> > Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> 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
> > alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
> >
> >
>
> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3499 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 838 bytes --]

On Tuesday 08 Jan 2013 01:15:10 Michael Mol wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2013 8:08 PM, "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> >    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.

Mark, I don't think anyone is having a go at you and FWIW you're not wasting 
*my* bandwidth.  I found your suggestion useful for solving this problem.  

Meanwhile, this bug has been kicking around recognising that there is indeed a 
problem, which it seems will be solved with udev-196-r1:

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=444604

I haven't upgraded yet to see if it works.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[J. Roeleveld]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 22:53:19 +0000
Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday 07 Jan 2013 07:35:32 Dale wrote:
> 
> BTW, pressing the touch sensitive button on the laptop to eject the
> CD won't work, neither will typing eject in a terminal:
> 
> $ eject
> eject: tried to use `/mnt/cdrom' as device name but it is no block
> device eject: unable to find or open device for: `cdrom'
> 
> So, eject is still looking for cdrom ...
> 
> Either all commands and legacy apps should update themselves, or I
> better follow Mark's suggestion?

Mick,

You can tell "eject" which device to eject by adding the device-name to
the command, eg:
# eject /dev/sr0

This also works with USB-drives/sticks :)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1007 bytes --]

On Tuesday 08 Jan 2013 07:09:40 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 22:53:19 +0000
> 
> Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 07 Jan 2013 07:35:32 Dale wrote:
> > 
> > BTW, pressing the touch sensitive button on the laptop to eject the
> > CD won't work, neither will typing eject in a terminal:
> > 
> > $ eject
> > eject: tried to use `/mnt/cdrom' as device name but it is no block
> > device eject: unable to find or open device for: `cdrom'
> > 
> > So, eject is still looking for cdrom ...
> > 
> > Either all commands and legacy apps should update themselves, or I
> > better follow Mark's suggestion?
> 
> Mick,
> 
> You can tell "eject" which device to eject by adding the device-name to
> the command, eg:
> # eject /dev/sr0
> 
> This also works with USB-drives/sticks :)
> 
> --
> Joost

Yes, of course, otherwise I would be rather stuck, or would have to make 
symlinks, or even boot into MSWindows ... just to eject a CD!
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 17:05:19 -0800
Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

>    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.



You're not getting banged on, as Michael said udev is a polarizing
piece of software.

Life is full of silly and not-so-silly conventions and /dev/dvd is one
of them. It has no good reason to be there, and equally no good reason
to not be there, but you already fixed your stuff to make it do what
you want.

"It's not a bug" should be read more as "upstream is probably going to
ignore you" if you log a bug. In my opinion of course.

Do stick around, you are up there in the list of people who make
many useful posts.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4232 bytes --]

Mick wrote:
> On Monday 07 Jan 2013 07:35:32 Dale wrote:
>
>> I think you misunderstand or I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying
>> it was udev that did this. I am pretty sure it was the kernel. All
>> this happened when people with older IDE drives, myself included on my
>> old machine, had to switch to the new drivers and devices. Before the
>> change, old IDE drives and CD/DVD drives were given hd* devices and udev
>> made a link to that with /dev/cdrom or dvd or whatever for optical
>> devices which is what you seem to expect now. The reason udev did that
>> was for it to be consistent which I have no problem with . When the
>> kernel folks changed this, they also changed it from /dev/cdrom and
>> /dev/dvd to /dev/sr0. From my understanding, all optical devices such
>> as CD and DVD readers/burners are supposed to be sr0. I know k3b
>> updated theirs too. I seem to recall I had to run a unstable version
>> for a bit because the older version didn't have the code to see sr*
>> devices.
>>
>> I never said anything was broke, just that it was changed. There was
>> several things that was changed at about the same time that were related
>> and this was just one of them. Another was the change from /dev/hdXX to
>> /dev/sdXX for ALL hard drives. This change happened even if you was
>> using the old IDE drives. As I understand it, /dev/hdxx is no longer
>> supported on current kernels. All hard drives are /dev/sdxx and optical
>> drives are /dev/sr0(1,2,3,4 etc).
>>
>> Also, I didn't remove anything. It was changed by the kernel which also
>> lead to udev changing what it did. Again, as much as I dislike what
>> udev is planning, I never said udev did this one. I'm pretty sure this
>> was all started with the kernel devs. The udev folks just followed along.
>>
>> The biggest thing I recall is everyone with IDE drives having to update
>> the kernel config, edit fstab and grub or lilo before rebooting. This
>> was discussed on this list and I don't recall much fuss except for
>> having to change it and update everything. It was sort of a one time
>> thing and had a long term goal. All hard drives are sdxx and optical
>> devices are srx. All this happened when I was on my old rig which was
>> at least a few years ago.
>>
>> Does that make more sense now?
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-) :-)
>
> I think that you are conflating two issues which are separate in terms of
> chronology at least. Years ago we moved to libata and hdX changed to sdX.
> The udev confguration was updated at the time to link /dev/cd* and
/dev/dvd*
> to srX.
>
> More recently, the udev rules nomenclature changed. The udev
persistent-cd
> rules however was not changed. I moved it, remerged stable udev and
the file
> was not recreated. So something in udev has changed and it no longer
> generates the persistent-cd rules.
>
>
> BTW, pressing the touch sensitive button on the laptop to eject the CD
won't
> work, neither will typing eject in a terminal:
>
> $ eject
> eject: tried to use `/mnt/cdrom' as device name but it is no block device
> eject: unable to find or open device for: `cdrom'
>
>
> So, eject is still looking for cdrom ...
>
> Either all commands and legacy apps should update themselves, or I better
> follow Mark's suggestion?


According to what I found, both changes were done at the same time. 
Link below is one place that I found saying both things were being
changed in the kernel at the same time.  There are others but anyway:

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0608.1/0806.html

There may have been other changes more recent in udev but if so, I
missed them since this changed for me, and according to the list others
too, years ago.  I was on my old rig so it had to be several years ago
since I have had my new rig a couple years and never had to deal with it
during the install of Gentoo on it.

I do think it's helpful for some to have a consistent link like cdrom or
dvd.  It appears someone else thinks people that find it helpful need to
add their own rule.  Either way, it can be made to work.

Just trying to provide info based on my search results.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5985 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> Life is full of silly and not-so-silly conventions and /dev/dvd is one
> of them. It has no good reason to be there, and equally no good reason
> to not be there, but you already fixed your stuff to make it do what
> you want.
<SNIP>
> --
> Alan McKinnon

Alan,
   Maybe in the future you'll consider this story: For your
entertainment, please imagine an 82 year old woman who, unknown to
anyone, has somehow gone beyond simple web browsing and email and
managed to teach herself to watch a DVD on her Gentoo laptop. Possibly
she is hard of hearing? This works well for her as she can use
headphones and listen at levels that work for her any time of day or
night. Once you get your head around that picture, please imagine this
user being frustrated for _months_ when her 'no good reason to be
there DVD' goes away. This user feels, for no good technical reason,
that she has somehow hurt her computer and worse worries about the
costs of fixing it. She remains silent, doesn't ask for help and loses
access to something that she enjoys all because someone in the dev
community decides to 'make a change'.

   Not every user (of Gentoo or any other distro) lives in the
rarefied world of a Linux Sys Admin, much less the far more lowly and
infinitely more mundane world I inhabit. My experience is that people
almost always need a little help and almost never ask.

Over and out,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:26:04 -0800
Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Alan McKinnon
> <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote: <SNIP>
> > Life is full of silly and not-so-silly conventions and /dev/dvd is
> > one of them. It has no good reason to be there, and equally no good
> > reason to not be there, but you already fixed your stuff to make it
> > do what you want.
> <SNIP>
> > --
> > Alan McKinnon
> 
> Alan,
>    Maybe in the future you'll consider this story: For your
> entertainment, please imagine an 82 year old woman who, unknown to
> anyone, has somehow gone beyond simple web browsing and email and
> managed to teach herself to watch a DVD on her Gentoo laptop. Possibly
> she is hard of hearing? This works well for her as she can use
> headphones and listen at levels that work for her any time of day or
> night. Once you get your head around that picture, please imagine this
> user being frustrated for _months_ when her 'no good reason to be
> there DVD' goes away. This user feels, for no good technical reason,
> that she has somehow hurt her computer and worse worries about the
> costs of fixing it. She remains silent, doesn't ask for help and loses
> access to something that she enjoys all because someone in the dev
> community decides to 'make a change'.

I see what you want to communicate with that story, it's just not a
circumstance unique to Gentoo or even Linux. All computers and all
operating systems that upgrade go through the same thing, be it
Windows, Ubuntu, MacOS, Android, iOS, the other IOS, the whole lot of
them do this and break stuff if you let them update. MacOS has most
certainly got to be the worst - they almost have an official policy to
break APIs wantonly for fun and never supporting the breakage past the
next version. Windows fares best as the corporate customers insist of a
large measure of backwards compatibility.

Unfortunately that is the nature of today's connected world.

There is a way around it though, which is to not update the software
and apply only bug and security fixes. Think Ubuntu LTS here - that
would nicely solve the problem for the non-tech-savvy 82 year old and
it's a good compromise: no sudden unexplained changes together with a
good degree of safety

But for your own use you have chosen Gentoo with it's implicit agreement
that you will keep both pieces. You've always been upfront about your
use case and why you chose Gentoo, and I took notice. It's now quite a
few years down the track and you are still here. The ricers have all
come and gone[1], but Mark is still here. Apparently Gentoo still suits
his needs for the most part, and he's dealing with Gentoo just fine.


>    Not every user (of Gentoo or any other distro) lives in the
> rarefied world of a Linux Sys Admin, much less the far more lowly and
> infinitely more mundane world I inhabit. My experience is that people
> almost always need a little help and almost never ask.

I'll tell you a short story in return. Over the festive period I had
need to describe myself briefly. Without thinking I blurted out
"Borderline bipolar, OCD and somewhat Emo...". 

I'm not really into self-diagnosis, but that description seems to fit.
I know I shoot my mouth off too often, but you shouldn't take it
personally. Software is engineering - there's a few ways it can be done
right, and lots of ways it can be done wrong (all fully documented...).

When I talk about these things I usually forget I'm talking to people,
not machines. So I apologize for my tone - I could have said the same
thing in a very different way and gotten a very different result.

I would so much prefer to not draw comparisons between sysadmins and
users - experience teaches that nothing good comes out of that. If you
describe yourself as a regular user then that's cool by me, I'd just
like to point out again that many years later you are still here and the
ricers aren't - that's gotta count for something.

For my part, I think you contribute more back to this community than
you might give yourself credit for. "Mere user" is not a good
description of where you fit in



[1] I'm not sure where that crowd all went.... they migrated en-masse
to Ubuntu a while back, then to Fedora. I think they might be hanging
out at Arch currently...



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 12:26:04 -0800
> Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote: <SNIP>
>> > Life is full of silly and not-so-silly conventions and /dev/dvd is
>> > one of them. It has no good reason to be there, and equally no good
>> > reason to not be there, but you already fixed your stuff to make it
>> > do what you want.
>> <SNIP>
>> > --
>> > Alan McKinnon
>>
>> Alan,
>>    Maybe in the future you'll consider this story: For your
>> entertainment, please imagine an 82 year old woman who, unknown to
>> anyone, has somehow gone beyond simple web browsing and email and
>> managed to teach herself to watch a DVD on her Gentoo laptop. Possibly
>> she is hard of hearing? This works well for her as she can use
>> headphones and listen at levels that work for her any time of day or
>> night. Once you get your head around that picture, please imagine this
>> user being frustrated for _months_ when her 'no good reason to be
>> there DVD' goes away. This user feels, for no good technical reason,
>> that she has somehow hurt her computer and worse worries about the
>> costs of fixing it. She remains silent, doesn't ask for help and loses
>> access to something that she enjoys all because someone in the dev
>> community decides to 'make a change'.
>
> I see what you want to communicate with that story, it's just not a
> circumstance unique to Gentoo or even Linux. All computers and all
> operating systems that upgrade go through the same thing, be it
> Windows, Ubuntu, MacOS, Android, iOS, the other IOS, the whole lot of
> them do this and break stuff if you let them update. MacOS has most
> certainly got to be the worst - they almost have an official policy to
> break APIs wantonly for fun and never supporting the breakage past the
> next version. Windows fares best as the corporate customers insist of a
> large measure of backwards compatibility.
>
> Unfortunately that is the nature of today's connected world.
>
> There is a way around it though, which is to not update the software
> and apply only bug and security fixes. Think Ubuntu LTS here - that
> would nicely solve the problem for the non-tech-savvy 82 year old and
> it's a good compromise: no sudden unexplained changes together with a
> good degree of safety
>
> But for your own use you have chosen Gentoo with it's implicit agreement
> that you will keep both pieces. You've always been upfront about your
> use case and why you chose Gentoo, and I took notice. It's now quite a
> few years down the track and you are still here. The ricers have all
> come and gone[1], but Mark is still here. Apparently Gentoo still suits
> his needs for the most part, and he's dealing with Gentoo just fine.
>
>
>>    Not every user (of Gentoo or any other distro) lives in the
>> rarefied world of a Linux Sys Admin, much less the far more lowly and
>> infinitely more mundane world I inhabit. My experience is that people
>> almost always need a little help and almost never ask.
>
> I'll tell you a short story in return. Over the festive period I had
> need to describe myself briefly. Without thinking I blurted out
> "Borderline bipolar, OCD and somewhat Emo...".
>
> I'm not really into self-diagnosis, but that description seems to fit.
> I know I shoot my mouth off too often, but you shouldn't take it
> personally. Software is engineering - there's a few ways it can be done
> right, and lots of ways it can be done wrong (all fully documented...).
>
> When I talk about these things I usually forget I'm talking to people,
> not machines. So I apologize for my tone - I could have said the same
> thing in a very different way and gotten a very different result.
>
> I would so much prefer to not draw comparisons between sysadmins and
> users - experience teaches that nothing good comes out of that. If you
> describe yourself as a regular user then that's cool by me, I'd just
> like to point out again that many years later you are still here and the
> ricers aren't - that's gotta count for something.
>
> For my part, I think you contribute more back to this community than
> you might give yourself credit for. "Mere user" is not a good
> description of where you fit in

I must have arrived after the ricers left, but I'd like to note that
both Mark and Dale fall into that group of "don't think they're all
that special"...but they still use a distro that requires you learn,
pay attention and *think* more than any other distro I know of.

I can't think of a type of 'mere user' I'd rather have to deal with,
as a technical guy who dislikes people who regularly throw their hands
in the air and claim helplessness. Just by using the systems they use,
attacking the problems they attack...and remaining successful as they
do, they're head and shoulders above a lot of people I've known who've
merely 'claimed' to be technical.

--
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> Life is full of silly and not-so-silly conventions and /dev/dvd is one
>> of them. It has no good reason to be there, and equally no good reason
>> to not be there, but you already fixed your stuff to make it do what
>> you want.
> <SNIP>
>> --
>> Alan McKinnon
> Alan,
>    Maybe in the future you'll consider this story: For your
> entertainment, please imagine an 82 year old woman who, unknown to
> anyone, has somehow gone beyond simple web browsing and email and
> managed to teach herself to watch a DVD on her Gentoo laptop. Possibly
> she is hard of hearing? This works well for her as she can use
> headphones and listen at levels that work for her any time of day or
> night. Once you get your head around that picture, please imagine this
> user being frustrated for _months_ when her 'no good reason to be
> there DVD' goes away. This user feels, for no good technical reason,
> that she has somehow hurt her computer and worse worries about the
> costs of fixing it. She remains silent, doesn't ask for help and loses
> access to something that she enjoys all because someone in the dev
> community decides to 'make a change'.
>
>    Not every user (of Gentoo or any other distro) lives in the
> rarefied world of a Linux Sys Admin, much less the far more lowly and
> infinitely more mundane world I inhabit. My experience is that people
> almost always need a little help and almost never ask.
>
> Over and out,
> Mark
>
>


I have a better question.  Why is a 82 year old woman using Gentoo?  If
she installed Gentoo, updated Gentoo then she must be able to do
something with Gentoo, right? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> I have a better question.  Why is a 82 year old woman using Gentoo?  If
> she installed Gentoo, updated Gentoo then she must be able to do
> something with Gentoo, right?
>
> Dale


Sorry for this Dale, but if this list gets to the end of the year and
finds a less well thought out question than the one you just asked
then I'll be surprised. Unfortunately I won't be here to read it if it
comes along.

To answer your question Dale, that 82 year old woman uses Gentoo
because it's what I put on her laptop. It's the perfect OS for someone
who does limited web browsing & browser-based email. (GMail/Hotmail)

With that I bid this list goodbye. I made it almost 10 years on the
list, and have run Gentoo almost exclusively for longer than that.
Yeah, I've loaded and tried other distros along the way, Fedora,
Funtoo are the two I remember, but none have compared. This list has
helped me to no end and I thank everyone for that.

Should anyone want to get in touch please do. (FirstLast@gmail)

Cheers & goodbye,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> I have a better question.  Why is a 82 year old woman using Gentoo?  If
>> she installed Gentoo, updated Gentoo then she must be able to do
>> something with Gentoo, right?
>>
>> Dale
>
> Sorry for this Dale, but if this list gets to the end of the year and
> finds a less well thought out question than the one you just asked
> then I'll be surprised. Unfortunately I won't be here to read it if it
> comes along.
>
> To answer your question Dale, that 82 year old woman uses Gentoo
> because it's what I put on her laptop. It's the perfect OS for someone
> who does limited web browsing & browser-based email. (GMail/Hotmail)
>
> With that I bid this list goodbye. I made it almost 10 years on the
> list, and have run Gentoo almost exclusively for longer than that.
> Yeah, I've loaded and tried other distros along the way, Fedora,
> Funtoo are the two I remember, but none have compared. This list has
> helped me to no end and I thank everyone for that.
>
> Should anyone want to get in touch please do. (FirstLast@gmail)
>
> Cheers & goodbye,
> Mark
>
>

But she doesn't do the updates, you do.  Why is she worried about
breaking something when I would hope you would test things to make sure
it works.  If my Mom were to start using a computer, she's about to be
80, she would not be doing any updates or anything.  I would be doing
that and fixing whatever breaks in the process. 

The question is a good question since most people that age are not
likely to be running Gentoo Linux and doing the updates themselves. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!