On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:54:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Unless we've got a counterexample to its superfluity dropping it sounds >> like the way to go. The weird thing is Sven's going on about device nodes' >> names/locations. Sven, what's setting up your device nodes?
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:46:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > Huh ? They have always been there, i suppose they are generated by the > package providing them, or by MAKEDEV. There may be other solution, like > udev or devfs, they are all controversial, and you have to start from > the principle that any guy upgrading from woody to sarge will have the > traditional way of setting those. > Willian, could you enlighten us of the possible future standard that is > emerging for future kernels ? As well as how they will fit into this, > especially given the sarge release schedule which is again on track ? There's no agenda behind this; I merely suspected it being a bad interaction with whatever's being used to manage device nodes, since from the above, it doesn't appear to be the kernel itself having trouble. -- wli
