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 1DqdVX-0006yo-Bu for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:02:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j67L0fSw015021; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 21:00:41 GMT Received: from perch.kroah.org (mail.kroah.org [69.55.234.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j67Ksesb028071 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 20:54:41 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.10] (c-24-22-115-24.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.22.115.24]) (authenticated) by perch.kroah.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j67KsHq26901 for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:54:17 -0700 Received: from greg by echidna.kroah.org with local (masqmail 0.2.19) id 1DqdJ8-86g-00 for ; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:49:18 -0700 Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:49:18 -0700 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on Message-ID: <20050707204918.GA30988@kroah.com> References: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> <1120765940.30316.62.camel@localhost> 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1120765940.30316.62.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: f3167194-aad6-45a9-b368-dedcf9d6b70b X-Archives-Hash: a7b90774589bdd1388a372a5d25113d6 On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:52:20PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to > > reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we > > drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default > > kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on > > my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like > > everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink > > anyway.) > > > > So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming > > scheme in this manner? > > No objections here. I've been waiting fort his move for a little while > now. The only real problems will be with those 2.4 (devfs) users who > refuse to move, maybe this is good enough incentive. As the default devfs configuration in gentoo is to use the LSB naming scheme, only people who will have customized their devfs configuration would have issues. Oh, and there seem to be some people that rely on the devfs naming scheme for block devices in /etc/fstab, for some odd reason. Anyway, I don't think this will break any devfs usages, they can keep using 2.4 and devfs all they want, the rest of the world will move on :) thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list