[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian-installer status

On 20 Oct 2001 09:36:14 +0200
"Stefan Nobis" <stefan-ml@snobis.de> wrote:

> Ethan Benson <erbenson@alaska.net> writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:50:42PM -0700, Rob Bos wrote:
> > > >                 - /dev is 3k bigger 
> > > 
> > > How practical would it be to compile devfs and include devfsd in
> > > bootfloppies?
> > 
> > the real installed system should not use devfs nor require it.
> Why not? There are only advantages, so where do you see the problem?
> Everything that is possible to do with the old system is also possible
> devfs, but devfs has some nice new features like only showing you
> entries that really exists, no more need of that really braindead
> device-numering system etc.

I like devfs because it _should_ be much cleaner, but IMHO it needs more
time to mature (if time will help). 

A while back i experimented with a program that scanned various /proc
files to get an idea of what storage devices are available.

It turns out that even if you compile with devfs, there are places where
the old style device names are still used (/proc/partitions i think was
what anoyed me), for me this ruined devfs's elegence.

I mentioned it on the linux kernel mailing list but nobody seemed to
think it was an issue... i dont understand why they would want it like
it is.


Reply to: