> To tell the truth, I didn't realize that so many files in /dev/ > were being fiddled. Obviously, one solution to the problem is > to have a separate writable /dev/ filesystem, e.g., devfs.
Note that devfs is still "experimental" in 2.4 Another remark for the HOWTO : mounting /tmp in "tmpfs" (since 2.4.1 ?) allows you not to resevre space for /tmp on a specific partition > The question is: Should we concede that a separate /dev/ fs is > required for running with a read-only root filesystem Dunno.. shall we consider devfs and tmpfs as standard (which is IMHO a good idea) for future releases? > It is worth filing a report to ask that the script not try to > change the permissions and ownership of the pipe if it is not > necessary to do so, and that it tolerate failure. I'll file it. Okay.
