MAKEDEV-1.7 and hdx >hdg

Greg Schafer gschafer at zip.com.au
Sun Jan 25 19:01:11 PST 2004


On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 07:13:26PM +0100, Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> I've attached an updated version (only minor changes)

Wow, there looks to be a fair amount of work in that! I'm assuming you've
somehow auto-extracted most of it from devices.txt. Otherwise, the chances
for errors to creep in would be rather huge.

Only a minor point, but it looks to be based on devices.txt from 2.4
kernel sources. It may be prudent to base it on 2.6 to future-proof it.

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:11:34PM -0500, Archaic wrote:
> There is still the script Matthias Benkmann wrote. It's in Bugzilla. It
> provides us with the best of both worlds. A scriptable dev creator with
> the learning value of giving the mknod commands.

Hmmm, not sure I'd buy the "best of both worlds" line after taking a look at
the script. It certainly does the business, but "giving the mknod commands"
? What's wrong with "man mknod" ? I've always felt that asking the user to
manually mknod the devices was taking the "from scratch" spirit way too far.
But the script is certainly in the "from scratch" spirit.

The FHS does say that "/dev must contain a command named MAKEDEV, which can
create devices as needed" so it would certainly qualify as that if it were
installed as /dev/MAKEDEV. However, it obviously wasn't designed to be user
friendly. IMHO, our MAKEDEV should function in a similar way to how most
other MAKEDEV's work.

My vote would be to stick with current MAKEDEV until 2.6 kernel goes into
the book and by then hopefully udev will be some sort of functional
replacement (if udev can do this - I'm yet to play with udev). Devfs would
appear to be a no-go at this point due to kernel developers' condemnation.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list