Re: ITP: devfsd
On Sun, Feb 20, 2000 at 09:19:39AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> I'm the maintainer of the makedev package. I have had in mind for some time
> that it needs a complete rewrite, both to move to a table-oriented structure
> instead of the current traditional-but-fairly-horrible huge shell case
> structure... and to change the behaviors to be more in line with what's needed
> for a modern Linux system.
>
> Having said that, in light of devfs making it into what will become the 2.4
> stable kernel, it would be silly to rewrite makedev without taking devfs into
> account. The current makedev has for some months been putting the MAKEDEV
> executable somewhere other than /dev and managing a compatibility symlink in
> /dev such that it doesn't break completely when devfs is enabled... but I
> won't even pretend to understand what role makedev can or should play when
> devfs is present, or whether Debian out to ship traditional or devfs by
> default... I just haven't had time to read up on devfs yet.
>
> I guess that's all a long-winded way of saying that I'd be pleased to help
> work through the issues at some point, and will do what I need to do to make
> makedev coexist gracefully with with both traditional and devfs /dev
> directories.
It's a real mess...but devfs is _really_ cool, and it'd be nice if we
could support it for real.
I'd suggest checking it out at:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/index.html
I'll try to repackage the latest versions of the userland bits later
this week and put them up on my devfs page, but I'm going on vacation
starting Thursday, so I may not make it before then.
If possible, I'd like us to work together on putting all this together
and coming up with something workable for device management.
--
Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_
Reply to: