Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Darren Salt <email@example.com> wrote:
> I demand that Andreas Metzler may or may not have written...
>> (I am not using it when booting 2.6, as it is obsolete and devfsd
>> has not been updated).
> My impression is that it has, at least, been maintained.
I don't think so. From browsing linux-kernel the only change to
devfs' code that has happened recently is that the devpts-filesystem
now needs to mounted even if running devfs. Otherwise no maintainance
has happened because nobody capable of maintaining it wants to it and
at least some of the race-conditions are believed to be design-issues
and practically unfixable.
> I think that it'll be retained as long as 2.6 is maintained, but
> removed completely in 2.7. (Of course, ICBW...)
Yes, afaik that is the official plan.
NMUs aren't an insult, they're not an attack, and they're
not something to avoid or be ashamed of.
Anthony Towns in 2004-02 on debian-devel