On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:23:58PM +0100, John L. Fjellstad wrote:
>
> You're missing my point. I'm not saying deprecated means anything else that
> what you wrote above, but I do disagree with you that sysfs/udev is a
> replacement for devfs right *now*. As your link indicate, udev won't be
> rea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nitebirdz wrote:
> OK, let me clarify then. Deprecated doesn't mean it doesn't work, but it
> does mean it is not actively maintained anymore and/or only major bug
> fixes
> will happpen. That appears to be the consensus whenever the issue is
> rais
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 05:38:15PM +0100, John L. Fjellstad wrote:
> Nitebirdz wrote:
>
> > Yes, devfs is considered to be deprecated in the 2.6 kernel and it has
> > been
> > replaced with sysfs and udev.
>
> sysfs/udev is not a replacement for devfs yet. Not everything that needs to
> be move
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nitebirdz wrote:
> Yes, devfs is considered to be deprecated in the 2.6 kernel and it has
> been
> replaced with sysfs and udev.
sysfs/udev is not a replacement for devfs yet. Not everything that needs to
be moved to sysfs has been moved to sysfs.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alan Chandler wrote:
> The second problem is establishing /dev/psaux. In the end I have manually
> loaded module "psmouse". This seems a new name to me, and therefore there
> is presumably a file somewhere that should cause this module to be loaded
On Sunday 11 January 2004 06:39, Nitebirdz wrote:
>
> Yes, devfs is considered to be deprecated in the 2.6 kernel and it has been
> replaced with sysfs and udev.
I guess ultimately what is important is the "debian" support for these. I see
there is a sysfsutils package, but little else at the m
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:30:05PM +, Alan Chandler wrote:
> On Saturday 10 January 2004 22:47, Nate Duehr wrote:
> > On Saturday, Jan 10, 2004, at 15:38 America/Denver, Alan Chandler wrote:
> >
> > Isn't devfs deprecated in 2.6 completely?
>
> Maybe, but there is clearly legacy support - my /
On Saturday 10 January 2004 22:47, Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Saturday, Jan 10, 2004, at 15:38 America/Denver, Alan Chandler wrote:
> > HOWEVER I think there are a number of module name changes that seem to
> > screw
> > up devfs
>
> Isn't devfs deprecated in 2.6 completely?
Maybe, but there is clearl
On Saturday, Jan 10, 2004, at 15:38 America/Denver, Alan Chandler wrote:
HOWEVER I think there are a number of module name changes that seem to
screw
up devfs
Isn't devfs deprecated in 2.6 completely?
The first problem is establishing /dev/agpgart. This no longer happens
despite manually loadin
9 matches
Mail list logo
