From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17399 invoked by uid 1002); 21 Oct 2003 07:49:10 -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 23668 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2003 07:49:10 -0000 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 03:49:08 -0400 From: Jon Portnoy To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20031021074908.GA17002@cerberus.oppresses.us> References: <200310202256.34889.cbrewer@stealthaccess.net> <20031021074313.GB16951@netswarm.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031021074313.GB16951@netswarm.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] udev implementation X-Archives-Salt: ddd38baf-2547-46e8-a17c-dd75de04c9d4 X-Archives-Hash: b5e6ffd9b2ac6f6e3beaee2500b5d27b On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:43:13AM +0200, Christian Birchinger wrote: > 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. > As far as I know, there are currently no plans to move to udev as default for a while. We do, however, have to have support for it, especially for archs like AMD64 - 2.4.23-pre* removes devfs for AMD64 due to bugs. I, personally, think udev sucks and will really miss devfs. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list