On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 01:05:11AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote: > Hello everybody! > > Today I read about the upcoming architecture for kernel device files > [1]. devfs is already marked obsolete (what a pity, I really like > it...) and will be replaced by an userspace daemon udev.
Me too, but I guess I'll have to see how udev looks. How does it look like? Will it retain compatability with the devfs device names? > Since this is stuff that will still change frequently and it is not > used by real applications yet, I think it is sensible just to ship a > static library and the two programs in a single package "sysfsutils" > now. When the interface stabilizes and the library comes to real use, > I would provide the full set of shared library, -dev and -runtime > package. You do not have to have a seperate -dev and -runtime package if the library is small, especially if it is not used by many applications. > Is it reasonable to provide just a static library? Policy 8.3 allows > it in principle, but since I'm not very experienced at this, I would > welcome any suggestions and your opinions. Sure, but is it always nice to have a dynamic library if more than one program is going to be using the library. - Adam
