On 03/14/2012 19:37, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>>> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support
>>>> both locations?
>>> Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of
>>> them don't work over the long run.
>>> We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything" :)
>> Gentoo provides far more options than Debian does, so this seems
>> somewhat contradictory to me.
> Not really, I don't think we support systems without udev anymore,
> right? And we get away with a lot of these different "options" at
> compile time, which makes it easier than what Debian has to handle, so
> perhaps it's not a fair comparison.
I already looked in the tree and nothing really stands out as a suitable
replacement for /dev management. mdev might, but it's part of busybox and
not standalone as far as I know (at least, we don't have an independent
package for it).
For my simplistic setups, I apparently only need udev just to setup the
networking interfaces, because Linux has never created /dev/lo or /dev/ethX
(nor does it even support them). Thus, CONFIG_DEVTMPFS can't set those up
at all. If I could find a small utility that was like udev and which took
care of that one little element, I think I'd be able to boot my systems up
Is it futureproof? Not really. I imagine plugging USB mass storage devices
into a udevless system might be problematic. Food for thought.
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic