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?


-- 
Groeten/Greetings,
Jeroen Coumans
{faq,website}@linuxfromscratch.org
www.jeroencoumans.nl



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list