| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 07:10:04PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> [ argh! resend to list this time... yay for inconsistent mailing list |
| 3 |
> headers and a few strange people who get upset with Cc:s :) ] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:53:52 -0400 Dylan Carlson <absinthe@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | Do we have a plan to deprecate devfs or do we plan to support both |
| 8 |
> | udev and devfs indefinitely? If we can get some agreement on how |
| 9 |
> | profiles should be handled in the future (referencing our previous |
| 10 |
> | thread on static profiles and things like GLEP19), I think it would |
| 11 |
> | make sense to standardize on udev going forward. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Well, that can't happen across the board until 2.6.x works on |
| 14 |
> everything. OTOH, it'd be nice if we started suggesting udev (without |
| 15 |
> that wretched tarball hack) for anyone running 2.6.x. Aside from one |
| 16 |
> rather nasty 64bit-related b0rkage, udev's been doing very nicely. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That b0rkage was really in all arches, it was just that 64bit machines |
| 19 |
showed it in a much more apparent manner :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I hate writing string parsing code in C... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
greg k-h |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives