Re: status of 2.6.7 ? (Was Re: Bug#256763: kernel-image-2.6.6-i386: not ready for sarge just yet)
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 11:54:03AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Unless we've got a counterexample to its superfluity dropping it sounds
>> like the way to go. The weird thing is Sven's going on about device nodes'
>> names/locations. Sven, what's setting up your device nodes?
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:46:00PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Huh ? They have always been there, i suppose they are generated by the
> package providing them, or by MAKEDEV. There may be other solution, like
> udev or devfs, they are all controversial, and you have to start from
> the principle that any guy upgrading from woody to sarge will have the
> traditional way of setting those.
> Willian, could you enlighten us of the possible future standard that is
> emerging for future kernels ? As well as how they will fit into this,
> especially given the sarge release schedule which is again on track ?
There's no agenda behind this; I merely suspected it being a bad
interaction with whatever's being used to manage device nodes, since
from the above, it doesn't appear to be the kernel itself having trouble.
-- wli
Reply to: