Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 22:28:42
Message-Id: 20050708222544.GB22141@kroah.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on by Michiel de Bruijne
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on Michiel de Bruijne <m.debruijne@××××××.nl>
Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on Martin Schlemmer <azarah@g.o>