Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:23:49 -0400 | From | "Robert L. Harris" <> | Subject | Re: devfs vs. udev |
| |
Thus spake M?ns Rullg?rd (mru@users.sourceforge.net):
> Andreas Jellinghaus <aj@dungeon.inka.de> writes: > > >> I noticed this in the help text for devfs in 2.6.0-test6: > >> > >> Note that devfs has been obsoleted by udev, > > > > devfs works fine, lists all devices, and obsoletes makedev. > > That's my experience.
Same here but read on.
> > udev needs patching for several issues, current sysfs only exports > > many but by far not all devices, and because of that makedev > > is still needed to create an initial /dev. > > > > in short: devfs works fine. udev has quite a way to go. > > so marking devfs obsolete was done too soon by far. but > > Exactly my point. > > I'd also like an explanation of the rationale behind the switch. > devfs works and is stable. Why replace it with an incomplete fragile > userspace solution? I recall reading something about the original > author not updating devfs recently, but I can't see why that requires > rewriting it from scratch.
As a pro-devfs person I felt the same and hate to say it but "read the archives". Someone gave a good writeup on the problems with devfs and how udev will (eventually) solve them.
I just hope udev can give a look/feel similar to devfs as I have quite a few machines already in production configured for devfs and really like the manageablility.
:wq! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu DISCLAIMER: These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else.
Life is not a destination, it's a journey. Microsoft produces 15 car pileups on the highway. Don't stop traffic to stand and gawk at the tragedy. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |