Re: potato missing /dev's
- To: Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: potato missing /dev's
- From: James LewisMoss <email@example.com>
- Date: 01 Feb 2000 08:17:11 -0500
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: Steve Greenland's message of "Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:32:51 -0600"
- References: <email@example.com> <20000126213451.A21811@molehole> <20000130110329.A346@paper.kitenet.net> <20000131203251.A7116@molehole>
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:32:51 -0600, Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
Steve> On 30-Jan-00, 13:03 (CST), Joey Hess <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Steve Greenland wrote:
>> > devices in the current directory. I suppose there is some
>> > traditional reason why this is so, but I'm very tempted to
>> > report a fatal bug against it.
>> Is there _anyone_ out there who has read the definitions of the
>> bug tracking severities?
Steve> Yes, I have, and I use them correctly when I actually report
Steve> bugs. This was an offhand remark. Besides, "fatal" isn't a
Steve> severity level.
Steve> Don't you think that the fact that MAKEDEV, when run outside
Steve> of /dev (by root, of course), creates the devices files in the
Steve> current directory is a severe design flaw? With not even an
No. For several reasons:
1) It's perfectly reasonable for someone to want device files that
don't happen to reside in /dev.
2) The script isn't in /bin or /sbin. It's in /dev.
@James LewisMoss <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Blessed Be!
@ http://www.ioa.com/~dres | Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach