What is considered "development"?
cheeziologist at mail.isc.rit.edu
Sat May 22 22:25:08 PDT 2004
Ryan Oliver wrote:
> Your argument falls down when it comes to stuff like usb storage.
> There is no need for userspace applications, and handling of storage is
> the job of the _base_ operating system.
> No fun booting into your shiny new LFS if you don't have a floppy or
> cdrom in the box and have to rely on USB storage.
> The question that has to be asked is:
> What is the expected functionality of a base operating system?
> I'd put device handling way up there on the list.
> Living with static devices is living in the past, people expect to have
> the ability to hotplug their devices on a _modern_ operating system.
> Why would people not want a transparent method of creation of
> device nodes, which only makes it easier for people to build BLFS with?
> Frankly, I believe udev should definitely be part of LFS.
> You can always mention the make_devices option at the start of the udev
> instructions for the luddites out there who cannot quite bring
> themselves to move with the times... for those folk, live with LFS 5.x.
I have stayed out of this discussion, with few exceptions, for the whole
time it has been going on (note that if you look, the discussion for the
inclusion of udev and possibly hotplug has spanned months) because I
generally don't like to get involved in such heated discussions. I'll
add my voice now because Ryan has accurately articulated my exact
feelings on this subject. For what it's worth, I lend my support behind
Ryan in trying to see the inclusion of udev and hotplug into the LFS
Book for the next release.
Registered LFS User 6929
Registered Linux User 298182
More information about the lfs-dev