From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 19 09:50:49 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA23554 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 09:50:49 -0700 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA23547 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 09:50:47 -0700 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id JAA09052; Wed, 19 Apr 1995 09:49:24 -0700 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199504191649.JAA09052@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: [DEVFS] your opinions sought! To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, julian@ref.tfs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199504191017.DAA00268@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Apr 19, 95 03:17:04 am Content-Type: text Content-Length: 878 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >>I personally have always prefered the flat scheme of /dev (with possible > >>exceptions for /dev/fd/*). This is a religious issue, I have spoken my > >>religion. > > > >I like it fairly flat. There certainly shouldn't be subdirectories for > >pieces of one device. > > I agree with Bruce. I would have agreed with Rod, but the simple fact is > that our /dev directory is getting very large and bloated, and this will only > get worse. Perhaps /dev/disks/* and /dev/ttys/*, etc, might be a way to > organize things (in other words, by device class). I prefer to not minimize > the number of levels as much as possible, while still providing some > organization. I vote for this one too. -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'