On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:25 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 07:49:34PM +0200, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 July 2005 00:46, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's
> > > time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently
> > > are living with[2].
> > >
> > > To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if
> > > you use the "default" kernel name of a device[3].  If you do that, it does
> > > not create a file in its database in /dev/.udevdb/
> > 
> > Are there any ebuilds in the tree that are not sysfs/udev-aware?
> 
> Not that I am aware of.  Anyone else know of any?
> 

Neither.  Or rather, I do not know about anything that should not work
with LSB /dev ...

> > I.o.w. is it still necessary to have RC_DEVICE_TARBALL="yes" as a
> > default or can we move to a pure udev system and change the default to
> > "no".
> 
> I've been running my boxes successfully with "no" since the option
> showed up just fine :)
> 

I think people is under a misconception about this option and ... you
really only need to enable this for a driver that is not sysfs aware
(nvidia comes to mind - any others?), or if you have some custom nodes
in /dev that you cannot do via udev ...  And I am pretty sure (correct
me if I am wrong) that all (or most?) in-kernel drivers are sysfs aware,
and only a handful outside are not.


-- 
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa