Re: udev device naming policy concerns

[Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org>]

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 (I am not using it when booting 2.6, as it is obsolete and devfsd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