| 1 |
On Friday 16 July 2004 8:32 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> No, supermount is just pointless, since we've got udev and dev.d, but |
| 4 |
> it's cleanly =Nable and off by default so I doubt many people really |
| 5 |
> care. The objectionable patch is bootsplash. Chances are everyone's |
| 6 |
> already heard wesolows' rant about this, and I agree with everything he |
| 7 |
> says, so I won't repeat it here. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Do we have a plan to deprecate devfs or do we plan to support both udev and |
| 10 |
devfs indefinitely? If we can get some agreement on how profiles should |
| 11 |
be handled in the future (referencing our previous thread on static |
| 12 |
profiles and things like GLEP19), I think it would make sense to |
| 13 |
standardize on udev going forward. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Cheers, |
| 16 |
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@g.o] |
| 17 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x708E165F |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives