udev problems

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Sat May 22 10:35:38 PDT 2004


Matthew Burgess wrote:

>Should LFS configure & support dynamic devices?
>

IMO, no. 

Let me elaborate.   Adding dynamic devices is more appropriate for 
BLFS.  LFS has never been an end result, but only a resonable stopping 
point.  To make an LFS system usable, a user MUST go on to BLFS to add 
the functionality that any reasonable person needs for a computer 
system.  BLFS already suggests recompiling the kernel in the X section 
if the user didn't do it properly in LFS.  It has the user recompile the 
shadow suite when adding PAM.  How is this different from adding 
something like udev?  You don't have to have it and users may not be 
comfortable with it or may not want it.  Optional packages should 
generally be added to BLFS and LFS should be maintained as a base 
package that is really as simple as possible. 

There is an argument that udev will be required in linux 2.8.  Well, 
looking at kernel.org I don't see linux 2.7.0 released yet.  We are a 
*long* way from linux 2.8.

Perhaps sometime in the future when udev becomes more common it should 
be transitioned from BLFS to LFS, but I don't see that right now or 
anytime in the near future.

  -- Bruce





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list