On 03/14/2012 19:37, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:27:07PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: >>>> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support >>>> both locations? >>> >>> Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of >>> them don't work over the long run. >>> >>> We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything" :) >> >> Gentoo provides far more options than Debian does, so this seems >> somewhat contradictory to me. > > Not really, I don't think we support systems without udev anymore, > right? And we get away with a lot of these different "options" at > compile time, which makes it easier than what Debian has to handle, so > perhaps it's not a fair comparison.
I already looked in the tree and nothing really stands out as a suitable replacement for /dev management. mdev might, but it's part of busybox and not standalone as far as I know (at least, we don't have an independent package for it). For my simplistic setups, I apparently only need udev just to setup the networking interfaces, because Linux has never created /dev/lo or /dev/ethX (nor does it even support them). Thus, CONFIG_DEVTMPFS can't set those up at all. If I could find a small utility that was like udev and which took care of that one little element, I think I'd be able to boot my systems up just fine. Is it futureproof? Not really. I imagine plugging USB mass storage devices into a udevless system might be problematic. Food for thought. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org 4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
