| 1 |
On 2012-03-13 8:07 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> You want it simple? Tha'ts fine, it is possible. It's just that it |
| 3 |
> will not solve the general problem, just a very specific subset of it. |
| 4 |
> Just as mdev is doing; Walt just posted an email explaining that if |
| 5 |
> you use GNOME, KDE, XFCE, or LVM2, mdev is not for you. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Very interesting thread guys, and thanks for keeping it relatively civil |
| 8 |
despite the passion behind the objections being raised... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I just wanted to point out one thing (and ask a question about it) to |
| 11 |
anyone who argues that servers don't need this - if LVM2 really does |
| 12 |
eliminate the possibility of using mdev for fundamental reasons (as |
| 13 |
opposed to arbitrary decisions), that rules out a *lot* of server |
| 14 |
installations. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
So, that is my question... what is it about LVM2 that *requires* udev? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Or asked another way - |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Why is LVM2 incapable od using mdev? |
Archives