Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git

2005-07-18 Thread Jim Crilly
On 07/18/05 10:12:29PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > 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. There's not much to wonder about here, the basic idea of de

Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git

2005-07-18 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Tuesday 19 July 2005 06:12, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > 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 main

Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git

2005-07-18 Thread Jan Engelhardt
>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.or

Re: [GIT PATCH] Remove devfs from 2.6.12-git

2005-07-18 Thread Richard Gooch
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! > - policy in the kernel. Like sysfs :-) > -