closure regarding udev

Nick Fotopoulos weasel at beyondnormal.org
Sun May 23 05:11:17 PDT 2004


On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 14:33 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: 
> Nick Fotopoulos wrote:
> > On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 01:09 -0700, Jeremy Utley wrote:
> > 
> >>Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There is one more argument to consider: the combination "udev " + "no 
> >>>hotplug" + "modular kernel" is inherently broken, and that's what we 
> >>>have in b6_0. I vote for either (1) or (3) or "(2)+ removal of 
> >>>module-ilit-tools".
> >>>
> >>
> >>I have to respectfully disagree.  When the module is loaded, udev 
> >>*should* still get called to create the device node.
> >>
> >>*Note* I have not tried this myself, however, but I hope this is the 
> >>case, otherwise my lpt zip drive is dead :)
> >>
> >>-J-
> >>-- 
> > 
> > I'm not sure about that one either, but in any case, the new bootscripts
> > can handle this situation with the createfiles script...so the 3 above
> > options should stand still as the available choices...
> 
> How is the createfiles solution different from make_devices.sh?
> -- 
> Alexander E. Patrakov
> To get my address: echo '0!42!+/6 at 5-3.535.25' | tr [!-:] [a-z] | tr n .

It differs from makedevices.sh in that udev creates all of the initial
devices for your system, and any that you choose to load as a modules
later and only if you chose not to use hotplug (or the module doesn't
yet support it) then you will need some sort of work around...like
createfiles.
I was just making a point that the createfiles script means that number
2 is not "inherently broken" but simply a bad choice...

Nick




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list