On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I > think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs > is a forward. It may need some improvement, but it's so much more > logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain > your objections.
This has been discussed before. Basically, devfs creates work by moving problems around without any significant benefits. I expect control of devfs device visibility and persistence of devfs device attributes would end up mostly in a utility (devd?). But once you have such a utility, you don't need devfs (or MAKEDEV). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
