On Wed, Sep 16 2009, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Bug #545309 causes me to realize that the recent lowering of priority
> for makedev to 'extra' motivates a review and update of policy section
> 10.6.
> Given udev, the majority of Debian systems in the future are unlikely to
> have makedev installed at all.
Actually, udev, while nice, is optional, and I think I have read
reports of admins opting _not_ to have udev on the system, so in some
cases one may have systems without udev and with MAKEDEV. Policy should
try to support this, if we can.
> There may be enough usage cases for static devices to motivate keeping
> it around at priority extra instead of requesting it be removed
> entirely, but it no longer seems appropriate for policy to mandate the
> use of MAKEDEV.
Well, if you modify that statement to unconditionally call
MAKEDEV, I will agree with you. Would it be sufficient if policy makes
calling MAKEDEV conditional on the existence of /sbin/MAKEDEV?
> Also, note that all packages above priority extra that depend on makedev
> are now buggy with respect to policy section 2.5.
Right. But this is a different issue.
manoj
--
The Banana Principle: Heuristic devices don't tell you when to
stop. --anonymous
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
