1 |
On 03/14/2012 19:37, Greg KH wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: |
4 |
>>>> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support |
5 |
>>>> both locations? |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of |
8 |
>>> them don't work over the long run. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything" :) |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Gentoo provides far more options than Debian does, so this seems |
13 |
>> somewhat contradictory to me. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Not really, I don't think we support systems without udev anymore, |
16 |
> right? And we get away with a lot of these different "options" at |
17 |
> compile time, which makes it easier than what Debian has to handle, so |
18 |
> perhaps it's not a fair comparison. |
19 |
|
20 |
I already looked in the tree and nothing really stands out as a suitable |
21 |
replacement for /dev management. mdev might, but it's part of busybox and |
22 |
not standalone as far as I know (at least, we don't have an independent |
23 |
package for it). |
24 |
|
25 |
For my simplistic setups, I apparently only need udev just to setup the |
26 |
networking interfaces, because Linux has never created /dev/lo or /dev/ethX |
27 |
(nor does it even support them). Thus, CONFIG_DEVTMPFS can't set those up |
28 |
at all. If I could find a small utility that was like udev and which took |
29 |
care of that one little element, I think I'd be able to boot my systems up |
30 |
just fine. |
31 |
|
32 |
Is it futureproof? Not really. I imagine plugging USB mass storage devices |
33 |
into a udevless system might be problematic. Food for thought. |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Joshua Kinard |
37 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
38 |
kumba@g.o |
39 |
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 |
40 |
|
41 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
42 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
43 |
|
44 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |