From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266825AbUGVHMI (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 03:12:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266824AbUGVHMI (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 03:12:08 -0400 Received: from 209-87-233-98.storm.ca ([209.87.233.98]:16028 "EHLO ottawa.interneqc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266821AbUGVHLk (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 03:11:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 03:04:54 -0400 From: Greg KH To: Andrew Morton Cc: Adrian Bunk , corbet@lwn.net, bgerst@didntduck.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) Message-ID: <20040722070453.GA21907@kroah.com> References: <40FEEEBC.7080104@quark.didntduck.org> <20040721231123.13423.qmail@lwn.net> <20040721235228.GZ14733@fs.tum.de> <20040722025539.5d35c4cb.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040722025539.5d35c4cb.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:55:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > Changes that remove functionally like Greg's patch are hopefully > > still 2.7 stuff - 2.6 is a stable kernel series and smooth upgrades > > inside a stable kernel series are a must for many users. > > I don't necessarily agree that such changes in the userspace interface > should be tied to the kernel version number, really. That's a three or > four year warning period, which is unreasonably long. Six to twelve months > should be long enough for udev-based replacements to stabilise and > propagate out into distributions. Users have had the 6-12 month warning about devfs for a while now :) And udev is currently available in the latest distro versions of: - Red Hat - SuSE - Gentoo - Debian - Mandrake While devfs is only supported in Gentoo at this time (and udev fills that support issue for those users.) > That being said, mid-2005 would be an appropriate time to remove devfs. If > that schedule pushes things along faster than they would otherwise have > progressed, well, good. Ok, if people think that would really change anything, I'll wait a year. I'm patient :) thanks, greg k-h