Leonardo Valeri Manera
lv2 at ukc.ac.uk
Thu Jul 12 03:51:00 PDT 2001
Florin Boariu wrote:
> another .02$:
> it looks clean. do ls /dev (classic) and do ls /dev (devfs) and you'll
> know what I mean.
aye, 'tis true.
that is why i cannot understand why some guru's condemn it as bloatware.
> i'm running devfs on my lfs-ppc. at first I had some obscure problems
> since the x server tried to load /dev/fb0, which did not exist, and the x
> server did not write an appropriate error message. it simply died.
> but i pached the server, aswell as other applications (mostly
> sound-related) and it works ok.
> as for soft links: i'm not a big friend of them in /dev -- i like devfs
> mostly because it's cleanly structured, so creating softlinks to make it
> look like the classic /dev tree is pointless to me, i even turned off the
> compatibility option of devfsd because of this reason. this does indeed
> require some patching work, but that's a single effort (which is rather
> small), on installation, and then it works forever...
true. still, a couple of links (i only needed them for sound) make like
so much easier...i use alsa for sound, and just softlink the
oss-compatibility devices /dev/sound/* to /dev/*. i also like to
softlink my filesystems, and then mount the softliks in fstab. but
that's just me.
it does'nt look too bad, i only have 9 files in my /dev.
i had to use devfsd on suse because it's not a distro built for devfs.
in fact, the patch to the bootscript that comes in the package is
and anyway, devfs *will* be the standard, so it just as good that we all get used to it.
and when they make it support devpts properly, we'll save some more ram :)
leo - raising by $0.02
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev