udev problems

Jeroen Coumans 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).


Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list