Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] /devices to /dev

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] /devices to /dev
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:01:23 -0700

On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:34:54AM -0500, Craig Van Tassle wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >>Kernel option bypasses this requirement... see in the kernel menuconfig
> >> under enabling the devfs...
> >>
> >
> >of course, i just figured it would be an easier transition to do it
> >this way then making some people recompile their kernels and editing
> >lilo/grub configs.
> >
> >
> >>>fstab needs to be updated. The following should take care of it:
> >>>cat /etc/fstab|sed 's/^\/devices/\/dev/' > /tmp/fstab; mv /tmp/fstab
> >>>/etc/fstab
> >>
> >>I mount on both /dev [kernel automagic], and /devices [unmodded mount.sh]
> >> and kept this against /devices ... I get to optionally disable devfs on
> >> /dev
> >> and rescue my system if I absolutely need to... I have an alternate
> >> kernel
> >> that is patched for custom extensions that break against devfs presence
> >>
> >
> >whatever works, the idea was that we would just move back to /dev
> >everything iirc, so im just concerned with that.
> >
> >
> >>>I think that the iso's ought to change over too for all new installee's.
> >>
> >>I might look at doing this in the iso images I create
> >>
> >>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> >
> >
> >seeing as how thats the best way to get new systems over, and since
> >there seemed to be a mailing list agreement [1] Id recommend it.
> >
> >[1] https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/sm-discuss/2003-June/003483.html
> >_______________________________________________
> >SM-Discuss mailing list
> >SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
> >
>
>
> Andrew I have to agree the devfs is a good system.. However I think we
> still need to give the endusers the option of using devfs(d) or not.
> Some people just dont have that many disks, and want to keep all of
> there clock cycles to use them selves.
>
just how busy do you think devfsd is? and furthermore i said it was optional.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page