udev problems

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Sat May 22 11:20:41 PDT 2004

Matthew Burgess wrote:

>On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:35:38 -0500
>Bruce Dubbs <bdubbs at swbell.net> wrote:
>>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 
>In which case I have a proposal then.  We rip out make_devices.sh from
>the book, and handle neither static nor dynamic devices, as they merely
>go towards making the system usable.  IMO a device is a device.  It
>doesn't matter whether it's static, dynamic, or a psuedo device (e.g.
>/dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.).  IMO they need to be dealt with in the
>same place, whether that place be LFS, BLFS or a hint.
>What we should do then, is simply point people at devices.txt in the
>kernel sources and tell people that everything they need to know is in
>there.  Additionally modutils/module-init-tools has no place being in
>LFS either as they deal with devices, so they'll have to go too.  Hey at
>this rate we could cut the book down as far as the FROM-POWERUP-TO-BASH

You asked for opinions and you answer with what I perceive as sarcasm.  
Have you made up your mind?
  -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list