1 |
On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 06:34, Travis Tilley wrote: |
2 |
> 1) udev is either ready or it isnt. the fact that you need to use a device |
3 |
> tarball for entries udev doesnt support shows me that it isnt ready. what's |
4 |
> the point of using a device management system if you're going to just dump a |
5 |
> bunch of extra dev entries in there anyway? if udev were ready, this wouldnt |
6 |
> be necessary. |
7 |
|
8 |
Most of those drivers are not sysfs-aware and simply have not been |
9 |
updated by the various authors. Most of them are non-kernel modules, |
10 |
such as VMware. |
11 |
|
12 |
> 3) devfs isnt going away any time soon, and there will be people like me who |
13 |
> dont think it's a good idea to risk bugs for no apparent benefit. |
14 |
|
15 |
Perhaps the next stable kernel version, if what I've been reading holds |
16 |
true. |
17 |
|
18 |
> 4) it makes sense to keep supporting devfs even after it's ripped out of the |
19 |
> kernel, which i think isnt until after the /next/ stable kernel series. since |
20 |
> we still support 2.4 as the default (on a few archs anyways) i think even |
21 |
> when it is ripped out, people will be using a kernel series that still has it |
22 |
> for a -while-. if it werent for this tendency to not use the latest stable |
23 |
> kernel, i wouldnt have had to move the 2.6 linux-headers into their own |
24 |
> package just to support nptl properly on archs other than amd64. |
25 |
|
26 |
Agreed, we will have to maintain support for some time to come. |
27 |
|
28 |
> bah, i've been suckered into installing udev... so i might as well keep it |
29 |
> until something breaks. i disabled the tarball hack since it was making /dev |
30 |
> ugly and cluttered... though i admit it seems to be more ready than i thought |
31 |
> it was. at least for now i can have both and always make devfs mount on |
32 |
> boot... please dont think seriously about removing support for that. at least |
33 |
> not until after we all move over to 2.10 anyways. :/ |
34 |
|
35 |
I find the flexibility it gives me to be much better than devfs, and I |
36 |
enjoy having the "standard" Linux device naming that we're all used to |
37 |
having from before devfs. Currently, I use it to create custom /dev/ |
38 |
entries for specific pieces of hardware, like /dev/usbkey and |
39 |
/dev/archos, along with the "standard" device nodes for those devices, |
40 |
so I could setup hotplug.d with a script to automatically mount them |
41 |
upon them being plugged into my machine. I find it to be far superior |
42 |
to using devfs+supermount, since there's nothing "fooling" the kernel |
43 |
into thinking a device is always mounted. |
44 |
|
45 |
-- |
46 |
Chris Gianelloni |
47 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
48 |
Gentoo Linux |
49 |
|
50 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |