| 1 |
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 07:06 pm, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's |
| 4 |
> > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently |
| 5 |
> > are living with[2]. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > [2] devfs vs. udev flames will dutifully be ignored. Give up, it will do |
| 9 |
> > You no good to argue. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My understanding was that we still support old 2.2 kernels for SPARC |
| 12 |
> users as eradictor (iirc) posted a patch that only allowed iproute2 |
| 13 |
> support if the kernel supported it. 2.6 kernels support it by default - |
| 14 |
> were require /proc/net/netlink for iproute2. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
and eventually i'd like to get m68k into the 2.2 kernels ... |
| 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 |
i dont see how 2.2 kernels matter since they dont even support devfs ? |
| 23 |
-mike |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives