1 |
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote: |
2 |
> On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote: |
3 |
> > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's |
4 |
> > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently |
5 |
> > are living with[2]. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if |
8 |
> > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3]. If you do that, it does |
9 |
> > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/ |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware? |
12 |
|
13 |
Not that I am aware of. Anyone else know of any? |
14 |
|
15 |
> I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a |
16 |
> default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to |
17 |
> "no". |
18 |
|
19 |
I've been running my boxes successfully with "no" since the option |
20 |
showed up just fine :) |
21 |
|
22 |
thanks, |
23 |
|
24 |
greg k-hj |
25 |
-- |
26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |