From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:56:49 +0000 Subject: Re: Trying to compile udev + libsysfs Message-Id: <20060112195649.GB14222@kroah.com> List-Id: References: <20060105173502.GA2408@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20060105173502.GA2408@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 01:33:20PM +0100, Wolfgang Klein wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > Ok, that makes sense. Problem is, it's hard to upgrade kernel versions > > these days on distros that are not set up to handle it. 9.2 wasn't the > > best example of a release that could handle updated kernels (to be fair, > > And that's why I believe that everything related to the kernel should > not be in the hand of the distributors. Building a distro around a > specific kernel version that most likely will not run with a different > kernel version later is a sick think. This is done in Redmond-OS, but it > should not be done in Linux. A Linux-distribution should be independent > of the kernel version. Great, I'm glad you feel this way. Unfortunatly we did that for about 12 years, and people complained that they wanted more features and intregration, like other operating systems provided them. Things like networkmanager, udev, alsa, dri/drm, and others would not be possible without a tight tie between the kernel and userspace programs. But I could be wrong, and would gladly accept patches to the kernel for sysfs/udev related things, or other parts of the kernel, to make this not so tightly bound :) (hint, if you look at the future design path for sysfs and the driver model, it handles keeping userspace programs from being forced to upgrade, barring any stupid bugs in the userspace programs, which have been the reason for having to upgrade udev in the past...) > > that's what I use on one of my boxes, and I got it working, but it was > > hard...) > > Could you please tell me what you did to achieve a working system? Maybe > I will be able to do the same. from what I remember, I stripped out the libsysfs-dependant packages and deleted udev and just used a tarball and hacked up the init scripts. But I wouldn't recommend it for anyone, and it's not the box I do my main kernel and udev development on, it's for other tasks for my day job. > > better (which makes users happier.) In general, users do not ever > > upgrade their kernels on their own, but rely on the disto to support > > them. This is the case for the SuSE 10.0 release, and almost all others > > Like I told you before: if I waited for SuSE to update the kernel > version I would still be stuck with kernel 2.6.4 or something. No, not if you upgraded to 10.0, right? > > Also, you don't want to use udev at all, feel free to upgrade your > > kernel, and switch back to a static /dev. > > Is there any HowTo to this or could you tell me how to do it? What would > be the (dis)advantages? What problems could arise from that? Sorry, I don't know where to point you here, you are on your own... good luck. greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel