From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A63C138328 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 04:55:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91882E0665; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 04:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com (mail-bk0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BAABE0665 for ; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 04:53:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id jf20so8114120bkc.2 for ; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:53:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=Hy7S0sZOYAliDu22kK5LzB4RAAF+Es60K2rgA1qfFtU=; b=R4u6ZdvS/4uk/3mnpJju/I3jBhrQwSXZ93M8Z6ICESsk2KcntEBrejCsGZNU0Qk2Ek eBtT44HbiCHPRVqwtHYh57vBRWjMxW/Ke+O/1Ue9JWZ9DtjxIH9xFsV1Hz2y+CqC3uIh NyLCrdR5+IROiHhwOjLabvIq9PUSDlHAq/hg6bkAv5PAzFP/VnEpFKlQONaCiOmPJy/5 wGiSEJB9ARz0vWe/dwq+epqYcGVZWqI2t+yF5APUxreqAZJ/8Ws+bPjFKqD6vGJOSWGa 27DpfEbsXynxVPV51Nll04K9xSjcsrceI3HUunO/2+enpt/9TSslKOVy84mqLCFBYjW5 bjsA== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.7.78 with SMTP id c14mr29792995bkc.100.1357534413456; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 20:53:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.199.144 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:53:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50EA32EE.6020801@gmail.com> References: <201301061119.56710.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <50EA2364.4080604@gmail.com> <50EA2A8D.3040203@iinet.net.au> <50EA2E15.4020006@gmail.com> <50EA32EE.6020801@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:53:33 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 4 machines - no /dev/cdrom or /dev/dvd anymore From: Mark Knecht To: Gentoo User Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 0039247b-5ed9-492f-88c6-e7e1a6371677 X-Archives-Hash: 815d8c4381b4f121a7eab5bc771acc76 On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Dale wrote: > 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