Re: base-files and /dev
Russell Coker wrote:
> I don't consider /dev to be a file.
However, it's labelled the same way as /dev/foo, isn't it?
At least this is what it seems from this line:
> It's just that on a devfs system with the default configuration the
> /dev directory on the root file system will at all times be obscured
> by the devfs file system that is mounted on top of it. Therefore
> it's best that you not try to do things with /dev unless you check
> for the presense of a mounted devfs first.
Actually, I don't try to *do* anything with /dev. It's your policies
who consider the mere existence of /dev in a package as a threaten.
Upgrading a package which contains the /dev directory should not make
your policies to ring any bell, unless the package contains real files
(or device files, or directories) in /dev, which of course base-files
does not (since 2.1.20).
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org