Is anybody actually advocating removing _user_visible_ devfs
functionality? my understanding of the argument over on lkml was that
people were advocating
(1) leaving it in for 2.6 / including a smaller devfs implementation
(2) Developing a user-space solution for 2.7
in which case, we would still
On Sun, Feb 09, 2003 at 10:07:39AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> It might give us a few new problems:
>
> - Some platforms do not have working devfs support. drop or add
>workaround?
this archs uses 2.2 kernels, so we can't currently use d-i on it. there
are devfs patches for 2.2 but
[Bastian Blank]
> we discuss some time about using devfs in the installed system to
> avoid mapping the devices which may break things. s390 currently
> uses devfs and don't have any problems with it.
> devfs is available after the feature freeze of linux 2.6 so it seems
> to be availble with this
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:30:04PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> While opinions may vary, I wonder if we're really smart to depend on devfs as
> a kernel feature for the limited use we need to make of it in the install
> process? Or is there some big win from devfs that I haven't understood yet?
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:15:42PM +0100, Martin Sjögren wrote:
> Myself I don't know how many things we're using devfs for, but I know
> for a fact that I'm using devfs in the floppy-retriever. How do I find
> out if and how many floppy drives there are on a system when not using
> devfs? With dev
fre 2003-02-07 klockan 22.06 skrev Stephen R Marenka:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:30:04PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
> > me, particularly since I think we'd like debian-installer to work for at least
> > 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, if not well beyond.
>
> Some subarchs (m68k/mac and some sparc?) stil
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 01:30:04PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> me, particularly since I think we'd like debian-installer to work for at least
> 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, if not well beyond.
Some subarchs (m68k/mac and some sparc?) still don't have working 2.4
kernels. Are we abandoning installation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian Blank) writes:
> we discuss some time about using devfs in the installed system to avoid
> mapping the devices which may break things. s390 currently uses devfs
> and don't have any problems with it.
> devfs is available after the feature freeze of linux 2.6 so it seems
hi folks
we discuss some time about using devfs in the installed system to avoid
mapping the devices which may break things. s390 currently uses devfs
and don't have any problems with it.
devfs is available after the feature freeze of linux 2.6 so it seems to
be availble with this version.
i ask
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 01:56:36PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> Bernhard R. Link wrote on Mon Dec 09, 2002 um 11:44:28AM:
>
> > This design decision could exclude the segment between desktops and
> > embedded things, where the only ways out are are serial-cards (and
> > maybe some othe
#include
Bernhard R. Link wrote on Mon Dec 09, 2002 um 11:44:28AM:
> This design decision could exclude the segment between desktops and
> embedded things, where the only ways out are are serial-cards (and
> maybe some other things, for which getting a initial console would be
> even harder).
Ma
* Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [021209 11:07]:
> It would be the best practice for us. Some strange multi-serial-port card is
> generally not essential for the installation, but missing some important
> device node of a harddisk is. Look at the current situation with /dev/i2o/hdX
> devices, we
#include
Bernhard R. Link wrote on Mon Dec 09, 2002 um 10:56:39AM:
> devfs also seem to have some problems with some drivers. I remember a
> situation in the local lug here, where a multi-serial-card did not
> want to run together with devfs, even after some changes to the module's
> source.
>
>
* Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [021208 22:48]:
> we discuss about devfs or not devfs in the installed system.
> we currently map any devfs path to the non devfs variant. the count of
> map definitions will grow if we want to support more special hardware.
> so the question is, why won't we use
Hi Eduard,
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:28:33PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Rob Bradford [Sun, Dec 08 2002, 10:08:26PM]:
>
> > Devfs has not really had a great welcome in the Linux community as a
> > whole and it looks likely that devfs support will become depracated in
>
#include
* Rob Bradford [Sun, Dec 08 2002, 10:08:26PM]:
> Devfs has not really had a great welcome in the Linux community as a
> whole and it looks likely that devfs support will become depracated in
Any details?
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Bei MacOS X-Air ist das abe
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 21:47, Bastian Blank wrote:
> hi folks
>
> we discuss about devfs or not devfs in the installed system.
> we currently map any devfs path to the non devfs variant. the count of
> map definitions will grow if we want to support more special hardware.
> so the question is, why
hi folks
we discuss about devfs or not devfs in the installed system.
we currently map any devfs path to the non devfs variant. the count of
map definitions will grow if we want to support more special hardware.
so the question is, why won't we use devfs on the installed systems?
bastian
--
Vul
18 matches
Mail list logo
