On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Adam Heath wrote: > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > On Dec 29, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Because /eventually/ it will not be needed anymore (at least by most > > > > users, which then will be able to remove it from their systems). > > > Is there something to replace it, completely, in *all* situations? > > udev, at least for the general case of users using devices in /dev, > > fully replaces MAKEDEV. > > > > The only exceptions I can think about are broken drivers which have not > > been ported to the device model (but I could not name any) and people > > who create device nodes out of /dev for weird reasons (usually because > > they need multiple copies of the same device with different owners). > > Ok, pardon the noob questions, but here they come: > > How does persistance of the permission model work? Can I do chown/chmod on > the dynamic files in /dev, and have them remain the next time? Even if a > device node changes it's name? Or do I have to edit some alternative > database? > > I've been running 2.6 for a while now. Lots of our servers do(all our xen > machines). We've had no use for any dynamic device anything; in fact, I'd > much prefer to not have anything dynamic on a server; stable names is all I > want(which means the kernel renaming scsi devices is broken, but C'est La > Vie).
Ok, well, I've talked to Marco on irc for a bit. I'd summarize what he said here, but he didn't actually say anything. So, these people pushing these automatic whizzywigs are just blowing smoke. Nothing to see here, move along. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
