From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14693 invoked by uid 1002); 21 Oct 2003 20:35:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 7409 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2003 20:35:52 -0000 From: Martin Schlemmer Reply-To: azarah@gentoo.org To: "C. Brewer" Cc: Gentoo-Dev In-Reply-To: <200310202256.34889.cbrewer@stealthaccess.net> References: <200310202256.34889.cbrewer@stealthaccess.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-5QjgtIe/nsLOd/TZ/q9N" Message-Id: <1066768579.11872.163.camel@nosferatu.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:36:19 +0200 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] udev implementation X-Archives-Salt: 5de97427-3c9c-4629-ac2c-a1da2be8f116 X-Archives-Hash: 8d2de27fee5a1eaa142971f5dfa1f2c6 --=-5QjgtIe/nsLOd/TZ/q9N Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 07:56, C. Brewer wrote: > I tried out the 0.2 version of udev today, and I realize that its way ro= ugh=20 > so early in the development, but I must say I was disappointed with it's=20 > current implementation ( and the lousy attitude of the udev FAQ "if you d= on't=20 > like it stick with devfs" didn't help). Currently I have some small conce= rns=20 > about adopting this as a whole ( somewhere on down the line)- >=20 Right. > 1)The present package consists of a tarball with just about every device = node=20 > you could make (excepting small things like sound, ppp, more than 4 ttyS*= 's) > Is this going to be a standard, or will some form of intuitive /dev entri= es be=20 > imp'd? IIRC, the tarball is about 1.4k device nodes, and I think I need 1= 00=20 > on the outside. >=20 Problem is that you need sysfs support, and currently only the scsi and major block/char devices supports it (no input, sound, etc). The tarball is only the initial stage, when better support is there (and I have obviously learned a lot more :), it will be dropped. > 2) Since this won't automatically create these nodes ( unless a hotplug e= vent=20 > occurs), or load the dependent modules, doesn't this seem like a step bac= k to=20 > the old system, but with a name-mapping steroided hotplug? >=20 Depends, creating specific entries in /sys/ will also cause these, and when all drivers support sysfs .... > 3) Don't get me wrong..I'm not flaming the package,and I realize devfs is= crap=20 > as well..but the score is devfsd( crap but makes nodes and loads mods on = the=20 > fly) and udev (maps names and supposedly does stuff with hotplugging that= =20 > hotplug never amounted to.( and is dev'd by the hotplug peeps?ironic)). A= ll=20 Eventually udev will do this as well (for me example, if with new udev, and not having /sbin/udev in /proc/sys/kernel/hotplug, it auto loads usb-storage + co, and creates /dev/sdc* [after deleting them of course]). You basically just have to think back initial devfs stage =3D) > that aside, what is udev going to do for the desktop? I have devices I co= uld=20 > swap(USB) but with most comps coming with like 6 usb ports, I cant see mo= re=20 > than some pendrive swapping at user level. Yeah, I know theres peeps out=20 > there with 80 pendrives and 8 hot-swappable hdd's, but is this the majori= ty=20 > of users? For the likely many of us who dont need to swap and have had th= e=20 > same hardware on the same nodes that dont ever change..what does udev bri= ng=20 > to the table? >=20 When the driver register, it will still create /sys/ entries, and thus the nodes you wish for (when it supports sysfs). > Forgive me if I've gone delusional.. I was just under the impression that= udev=20 > was going to do everything that devfsd does now _and_ add name mapping, a= nd=20 > apparently I was wrong. I'm just planning for the future since seeing the= =20 > udev changes going into our init system.. we got no choice about the devf= s=20 > and I feel it's going the same way for udev. I'm not trying to slight the= =20 > obviously hard work that was put into it, but what about choice? to devfs= or=20 > not to devfs? to udev or not to udev? Or is it merely choice with package= =20 > selection, and not with the overall package that is Gentoo? >=20 If you want to do testing, and do not mind the slight issue, go udev - if not, go devfs for now. Thanks, --=20 Martin Schlemmer Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer Cape Town, South Africa --=-5QjgtIe/nsLOd/TZ/q9N Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/lZjDqburzKaJYLYRAo5YAJ98eJEN8ErE2sJS5uzHjIamIHVd7gCgiqPr gGSaRBCt5lDY3uH0dZIek/k= =c+35 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-5QjgtIe/nsLOd/TZ/q9N--