Re: [gentoo-dev] udev implementation

[Christian Birchinger <joker@gentoo.org>]

You're totaly right. udev is really not usable yet. I was happy
when i first saw the planed features. But once i got the
FAQ/Docs i was really disapointed. And this disapointment
increased after i downloaded the tarball.

I highly suggest not moving to udev yet. Even if devfs is marked
obsolete in kernel it's far better than udev which is in alpha
state. Ofcourse one day we will ne forced to adopt udev so it's
not a bad idea to check it out etc. but please don't switch to
it now. It's really not ready and causes far more problems than
devfs.

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:56:19PM -0700, C. Brewer wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
>  I tried out the 0.2 version of udev today, and I realize that its way rough 
> so early in the development, but I must say I was disappointed with it's 
> current implementation ( and the lousy attitude of the udev FAQ "if you don't 
> like it stick with devfs" didn't help). Currently I have some small concerns 
> about adopting this as a whole ( somewhere on down the line)-
> 
> 1)The present package consists of a tarball with just about every device node 
> 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 entries be 
> imp'd? IIRC, the tarball is about 1.4k device nodes, and I think I need 100 
> on the outside.
> 
> 2) Since this won't automatically create these nodes ( unless a hotplug event 
> occurs), or load the dependent modules, doesn't this seem like a step back to 
> the old system, but with a name-mapping steroided hotplug?
> 
> 3) Don't get me wrong..I'm not flaming the package,and I realize devfs is crap 
> as well..but the score is devfsd( crap but makes nodes and loads mods on the 
> fly) and udev (maps names and supposedly does stuff with hotplugging that 
> hotplug never amounted to.( and is dev'd by the hotplug peeps?ironic)). All 
> that aside, what is udev going to do for the desktop? I have devices I could 
> swap(USB) but with most comps coming with like 6 usb ports, I cant see more 
> than some pendrive swapping at user level. Yeah, I know theres peeps out 
> there with 80 pendrives and 8 hot-swappable hdd's, but is this the majority 
> of users? For the likely many of us who dont need to swap and have had the 
> same hardware on the same nodes that dont ever change..what does udev bring 
> to the table?
> 
> Forgive me if I've gone delusional.. I was just under the impression that udev 
> was going to do everything that devfsd does now _and_ add name mapping, and 
> apparently I was wrong. I'm just planning for the future since seeing the 
> udev changes going into our init system.. we got no choice about the devfs 
> and I feel it's going the same way for udev. I'm not trying to slight the 
> obviously hard work that was put into it, but what about choice? to devfs or 
> not to devfs? to udev or not to udev? Or is it merely choice with package 
> selection, and not with the overall package that is Gentoo?
> 
> Criticism appreciated, discussion welcomed, craziness and flames- please pipe 
> to /dev/null:)
> -- 
> Chuck Brewer
> Registered Linux User #284015
> Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.
> 
> 



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list