The 18/09/11, Duncan wrote:
> > I don't see any added benefit from using DBUS on my servers.
Insterstingly, Duncan just answered your question...
> Interesting question. I hadn't seen the suggestion until this thread,
> either, and it bothered me too.
> With a moment's thought, I decided I could probably return to a semi-
> static dev setup reasonably easily. I'd potentially turn on the early-dev
> option in the kernel that I still have off, ATM, which presumably would
> mount a tmpfs on dev and populate it with the earliest devices. After
> that, if necessary, I'd copy the existing udev-created nodes out to a
> persistent state dir, and copy them back in with a little init-time
> script of my own. As long as the device ordering remains stable, this
> could include by-label, etc, symlinks, or I could simply kill the by-
> label, by-uid stuff in fstab, and go back to traditional devices there,
> Either that, or simply go back to a static /dev entirely.
> People with dynamic ordered devices may have to devise their own scripts,
> tho, or perhaps more likely, fork off udev from the pre-union state.
> But it's also possible that's far enough in the future that we can't
> really answer the question now, since technology will have changed enough
> to make an answer now look senseless, then. Consider trying to answer
> the question in terms of the kernel devfs back before udev. The tech
> simply changed and those answers wouldn't really work, today.
Upstream changes the init process is done. So, you're free to either:
stick to upstream (with best long term support);
fork off upstream (requires knowledges, manpower and time);
go back to 1960 with a full/partial static /dev (asking to manually
maintain the crap).
See the benenfit, now?