Re: devfs vs. udev

["Robert L. Harris" <Robert.L.Harris@rdlg.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1818 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]