[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[RESOLVED] Re: dependencies on makedev

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Adam Heath wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Dec 29, Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Because /eventually/ it will not be needed anymore (at least by most
> > > > users, which then will be able to remove it from their systems).
> > > Is there something to replace it, completely, in *all* situations?
> > udev, at least for the general case of users using devices in /dev,
> > fully replaces MAKEDEV.
> >
> > The only exceptions I can think about are broken drivers which have not
> > been ported to the device model (but I could not name any) and people
> > who create device nodes out of /dev for weird reasons (usually because
> > they need multiple copies of the same device with different owners).
> Ok, pardon the noob questions, but here they come:
> How does persistance of the permission model work?  Can I do chown/chmod on
> the dynamic files in /dev, and have them remain the next time?  Even if a
> device node changes it's name?  Or do I have to edit some alternative
> database?
> I've been running 2.6 for a while now.  Lots of our servers do(all our xen
> machines).  We've had no use for any dynamic device anything; in fact, I'd
> much prefer to not have anything dynamic on a server; stable names is all I
> want(which means the kernel renaming scsi devices is broken, but C'est La
> Vie).

Ok, well, I've talked to Marco on irc for a bit.  I'd summarize what he said
here, but he didn't actually say anything.

So, these people pushing these automatic whizzywigs are just blowing smoke.
Nothing to see here, move along.

Reply to: