1 |
There's another thread for complaining about the brokenness of the |
2 |
proposed udev implementation. This one is for doing something about it. |
3 |
After reading the udev-complaints thread, I joined the busybox list, and |
4 |
asked if busybox's simple mdev feature could replace udev. See thread |
5 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/35018 |
6 |
|
7 |
Apparently it can be done for "simple" systems, but there may be |
8 |
problems for some of the more complex setups. Then again, these more |
9 |
complex systems are the ones that would probably require /usr on the |
10 |
same partition as /, in the first place (or else initramfs). See |
11 |
message http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/35028 for details. |
12 |
In addition to the "mdev" flag, I would recommend the "static" flag on |
13 |
principle, especially if /usr is a separate partition. |
14 |
|
15 |
If we ever do get this working on a large scale, we may need to ask |
16 |
the Gentoo developers for a "virtual/udev" ebuild, which could be |
17 |
satisfied by busybox with the "mdev" flag, just like "virtual/mta" can |
18 |
be satisfied by ssmtp with the "mta" flag. This would allow people to |
19 |
choose whether they want udev or mdev. |
20 |
|
21 |
We should keep the discussion on this mailing list. Asking once if |
22 |
it's possible is one thing. Flooding the busybox list with Gentoo- |
23 |
specific questions would probably not be appreciated. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |