closure regarding udev

Nick Fotopoulos weasel at beyondnormal.org
Sun May 23 06:31:59 PDT 2004


On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 11:37 +0100, Chris Lingard wrote:
> Joel Miller wrote:
> 
> > I submit that ample time has passed regarding whether or not to include
> > udev and possibly hotplug in to the next LFS release. The community
> > obviously cannot reach a consensus. Furthermore, it seems as though
> > every argument pro or con to the addition has been made, and made many
> > times. I feel it is time for a decision in this matter so that it can be
> > closed and we as a community can move on to other developement. There
> > are only three options:
> > 1) Continue to use make_devices.sh
> > 2) Include udev but not hotplug
> > 3) Include udev and hotplug
> > 
> > Without agreement from the community, it falls upon Gerard or Matthew to
> > make a decision here. Gerard being very understandably otherwise
> > occupied, it would appear that only Matthew can decide this issue.
> > Again, I think ample time (months) has been put towards resolving this
> > and it is now time to move on.
> 
> An alternative is to keep two books. Those who dislike Linux 2.6 and its
> associated developments can stay with LFS-5.  Those that want to use and
> learn about the "latest" thing can use LFS-6.
> 
> There is little point upgrading to 2.6 if you are not going to use nptl,
> udev, hotplug and such.  The system I am using automatically detects
> network and USB stuff using hotplag.
> 
> In the past we kept up to date with the latest packages; we made the odd
> mistake, like the binutils version with four digits; but LFS was a modern
> system.  When LFS-6 was first mentioned, there was an agreement that it
> could be used for modern development.  If you do not like that idea, then
> stay with LFS-5, and let the rest of us "have fun" using the latest and
> greatest.
> 
> LFS-6 will have to run fast, otherwise it will be obsolete before it is
> released.
> 
> If you hate the idea of 2.6; just do not use it.  Your system, your rules.
> The problem will be that LFS-6.0 will be a retrograde step to many systems
> already running.
> 
> Chris

*applause*

I have been saying the same thing in IRC everysince this thing started
getting heated.

Nick




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list