udev problems

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun May 23 02:36:53 PDT 2004

Jeremy Utley said the following on 23-05-2004 09:24:
> It all depends on what you consider to be minimal, Bruce.  For some of 
> us, minimal means different things.  Like, for example, I think a 
> minimal system should allow for USB devices to be inserted and detected 
> properly by the system (i.e. Hotplug).  I think a minimal system should 
> support
> the forseeable future as best as possible given the existing technology 
> (Udev).  These things, especially udev, need to be taken into account 
> right from the very beginning of the build, they're very difficult to 
> just tack on later.  I shudder to think what's going to happen to LFS in 
> a year or so, when the need arises to create the initramfs filesystem so 
> the kernel can start up udev to handle randomized device numbers.  
> Without adequate planning ahead of time, and adequate user education, 
> LFS is going to be close to impossible under those circumstances.  Which 
> is exactly why some of us feel we need to be planning for this NOW, 
> rather than waiting and having to scramble to add it in once it becomes 
> mandatory.

That's the argument of the "storming future". What's so special about 
udev that it should be included *now* instead of next year? And why is 
it so difficult to include later? Isn't it just the removal of 
makedevices.sh and the inclusion of udev, just like now in unstable?

Jeroen Coumans

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list