| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's |
| 3 |
> time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently |
| 4 |
> are living with[2]. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> [2] devfs vs. udev flames will dutifully be ignored. Give up, it will do |
| 8 |
> You no good to argue. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
My understanding was that we still support old 2.2 kernels for SPARC |
| 11 |
users as eradictor (iirc) posted a patch that only allowed iproute2 |
| 12 |
support if the kernel supported it. 2.6 kernels support it by default - |
| 13 |
were require /proc/net/netlink for iproute2. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
baselayout supports (and probably will indefinitely) ifconfig/net-tools |
| 16 |
et all |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This has absolutely zero to do with udev, but the point is that devfs vs |
| 19 |
udev "flames" cannot be ignored until non udev supported kernels from |
| 20 |
all arches are removed from the tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
SPARC may have udev supported kernels supported now - I don't know. But |
| 23 |
what I do know is that we have to support the lowest thing we have. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Thanks |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Roy |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives