jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat May 22 11:48:23 PDT 2004
Matthew Burgess said the following on 22-05-2004 18:24:
> Should LFS configure & support dynamic devices?
I like that you managed to turn this into a constructive dialogue,
although we shouldn't misunderstand minimalist & functionalist
approaches to this issue. Minimalist does *not* mean unusable, and is
strictly to be understood in the context of the guiding principles which
I've regularly posted. Functionalist, at least how I understand it,
means extending the minimalist system with the most commonly used
applications for general use. (The problem with the latter is that it is
very difficult to objectively describe what should and what should not
be included; leading to endless debates).
The way I see it, both makedevices.sh and udev solve the same problem,
namely the handling of /dev. Both can support all hardware a user plugs
in, although the approach is different. Both have advantages and
disadvantages, but essentially fullfil the same function and the same need.
I already prepared a Wiki page for this some time ago with the goal of
reaching a compromise, namely to discuss all choices to the reader, but
only use 1 by default. The default is what is currently the most common
solution, eg. in the case of filesystems, we use ext3 because it is
backwards compatible with ext2 and probably most widely supported.
Similarly, we can handle udev. While it is currently not as mature as
makedevices.sh, it seems to be a good solution for many people. Since
it's not an official requirement for the kernel yet, by which I always
mean "build dependency or functional dependency", it can still be
supported in BLFS and moved to LFS once it *does* become one.
This does mean some reorganization and consolidation of kernel-related
packages, but it has the benefit of pleasing everyone (hopefully).
More information about the lfs-dev