| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:43:13AM +0200, Christian Birchinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> You're totaly right. udev is really not usable yet. I was happy |
| 3 |
> when i first saw the planed features. But once i got the |
| 4 |
> FAQ/Docs i was really disapointed. And this disapointment |
| 5 |
> increased after i downloaded the tarball. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I highly suggest not moving to udev yet. Even if devfs is marked |
| 8 |
> obsolete in kernel it's far better than udev which is in alpha |
| 9 |
> state. Ofcourse one day we will ne forced to adopt udev so it's |
| 10 |
> not a bad idea to check it out etc. but please don't switch to |
| 11 |
> it now. It's really not ready and causes far more problems than |
| 12 |
> devfs. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As far as I know, there are currently no plans to move to udev as |
| 16 |
default for a while. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
We do, however, have to have support for it, especially for archs like |
| 19 |
AMD64 - 2.4.23-pre* removes devfs for AMD64 due to bugs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I, personally, think udev sucks and will really miss devfs. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 25 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives