Re: udev device naming policy concerns
Darren Salt <linux@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk> 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 (I am not using it when booting 2.6, as it is obsolete and devfsd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.
cu andreas
--
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
Reply to: