>Greg KH writes:
>> I do care about this, please don't think that. But here's my reasoning
>> for why it needs to go:
>[...]
>> - original developer of devfs has publicly stated udev is a
>> replacement.
>
>Well, that's news to me!
What is more news to me:
( http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/hotplug/udev-FAQ )
Q: Why was devfs marked OBSOLETE if udev is not finished yet?
A: To quote Al Viro (Linux VFS kernel maintainer):
==> - the devfs maintainer/author disappeared and stoped maintaining the code
So, if you allow the question, where [t.h.] have you been in the meantime?
>> - clutter and mess
>In the eye of the beholder.
It's kernel code - I think the point is valid.
>> - code is broken and unfixable
>No proof. Never say never...
*thumbs up* You could just become the maintainer of ndevfs. :)
Something's wondering me, though:
FreeBSD "just" (5.0) introduced devfs, so either they are behind The Facts
(see udev FAQ), or devfs (anylinux/anybsd) is not so bad after all.
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
