From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqKPZ-0002OZ-Kn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:38:42 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j670a5ZT013798; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:36:05 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j670YDd0025746 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 00:34:13 GMT Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=home.wh0rd.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DqKM9-0004JN-OJ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:35:09 +0000 Received: (qmail 970 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2005 20:31:30 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO vapier) (192.168.0.2) by 192.168.0.1 with SMTP; 6 Jul 2005 20:31:30 -0400 From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 20:35:44 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> <1120691164.9402.14.camel@uberpc.ubernet> In-Reply-To: <1120691164.9402.14.camel@uberpc.ubernet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507062035.44428.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b72a1a6d-ff3e-423c-aa88-f314d42438ac X-Archives-Hash: df8c11cde36846a6f906dfe92580ea88 On Wednesday 06 July 2005 07:06 pm, Roy Marples wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, 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]. > > > > > > [2] devfs vs. udev flames will dutifully be ignored. Give up, it will do > > You no good to argue. > > My understanding was that we still support old 2.2 kernels for SPARC > users as eradictor (iirc) posted a patch that only allowed iproute2 > support if the kernel supported it. 2.6 kernels support it by default - > were require /proc/net/netlink for iproute2. and eventually i'd like to get m68k into the 2.2 kernels ... > This has absolutely zero to do with udev, but the point is that devfs vs > udev "flames" cannot be ignored until non udev supported kernels from > all arches are removed from the tree. i dont see how 2.2 kernels matter since they dont even support devfs ? -mike -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list