Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

[Alan McKinnon]

On 19/01/2016 18:51, karl@××××××××.se wrote:
> James:
>>  <karl <at> aspodata.se> writes:
>>>>> I found a workaround in the sys-fs/static-dev package.
>>
>> Interesting read :: bgo #107875
>
> I'm new to gentoo, is there some special semantic to the "bgo #" ?
>
>>>> Let's be clear: static-dev is NOT a workaround. It is a full proper
>>>> solution for the case when a dynamic device node solution is not
>>>> desired.
>> Well, I can think of embedded (linux) systems, a lock-down server and
>> machine(s) loaded up with (NFV) Network Function Virtuals, as prime examples
>> where a static dev is very useful; albeit a management pain if one is not
>> careful. This is a very interesting topic for me.
>
> I have had no pain useing an old plain /dev. What's the pain ?


take a machine running a desktop. Plug in a usb printer. Where's your node?

That's the whole point of a dynamic dev manager, it responds to devices
changes that occur on normal modern machines and does TheRightThing(tm)
- currently defined as whatever the dev-manager config tells it to do.

I'm having a hard time thinking what kind of machine you have in this
day and age that can do mail and also does not need a dynamic device
maanger. Please enlighten us, or are you perhaps using MAKEDEV?

>
>>>> Of course it means you have to mknod every device you need yourself. But
>>>> you know that going in right?
>>
>>> Yes (though I alreade have a /dev from before).
>>
>> For explicit clarity, you've got a "/dev" from using dev-manager on the
>> system previously, and now you desire to switch to a static-dev? (Why ?)
>>  Or did you derive from scratch (or other means) a '/dev' for a specific
>> need you are working on by design, historical example etc?
>
> No, I never used udev et al on my boxes, there has simply been no need.
>
>> I apologize in advance, but this thread intersects some critical new
>> thinking on systems cluster formation. I have ran into a small group of
>> extraordinary coders that are building a Hi Performance Cluster out of C,
>> Rust and a minimized static-dev.  So I am very curious as to your specific
>> and detailed motives for this 'static-dev'. If a private note is warranted,
>> feel encourage for that type of response. If this unbounded curiosity of
>> mine is unwelcome, you have my deepest apologies.
>
> I never had any compelling reason to let some daemon with mess with
> /dev. And I have had a compelling reason to avoid it, when doing an
> "usual" stable dist-upgrade of Debian lenny to squeze (I think), Debian
> installed udev per default and everything just stopped working. And
> that darn thing wouldn't uninstall and /dev wouldn't unmount to get
> back my /dev-entries. So udev have only giving me pain and no gain.
> The only thing dynamic theese days are usb. Usb disks I can handle
> manually, usb kbd/mouse has always worked. I usually don't use more
> than one keyboard so I don't really need xkb, nor do I need something
> to autodetect keyboard layout, since I change it to something else
> anyhow. And udev woun't detect my serial mouse anyhow... so much for
> that.
>
> That said, if I would like to test some "dev-manager" (except myself)
> than I'd look into something that behaves nicely, like mdev (busybox)
> or vdev (https://github.com/jcnelson/vdev.git).

Sounds like you made one mistake once and that has now become the world
for you. Almost no-one else here has reported dynamic dev managers make
"everything just stop working". What you will hear is lots of whinging
about udev - actually it's whinging about udev's maintainers cleverly
disguised as whinging about the software - but as a class of software
they all get the job done and do it well.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com