On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:52:51PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > 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.
I don't understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. The real problem is with X, X has one and one only core pointer, which is set to psaux on most systems since most users have a ps2 mouse. IF the ps2 device is missing, then X refuses to start. This could maybe be solved by a psaux->input/mice link or something, maybe. X being the main app though, we have to care about it. Friendly, Sven Luther
