Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on

[Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org>]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:56:30PM -0400, Kumba wrote:
> John Mylchreest wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 
> Just to make sure on a few things, we're talking x86 users here being the 
> hardcore 2.4 types, right?

Yes.

> While I'm all for 2.6, mips-side, we've still got some issues on IP22 
> (Indy/Indigo2) systems that forces me to keep a 2.4.31 ebuild around.  
> Sparc is also in a similar, although much bigger boat, where a whole lot of 
> 2.6.x releases just don't work for various systems, thus they have to stick 
> with 2.4.x as well.

I understand that other arches need to stay at 2.4 for various reasons.
Hopefully those issues will be fixed so that this situation doesn't stay
that way for much longer.

I am supprised that Sparc64 is stuck with 2.4, as the main kernel
developers of that tree work on 2.6 everyday.  As for mips, I thought
the recent (few kernel versions ago) merge brought you all up to speed?

Anything that I can do to help this, please let me know.

> Any of these changes that may affect 2.4/devfs usage need to keep this in 
> mind that some of us who still use 2.4/devfs may not be doing so out of 
> choice, simply because it's the only option we have.

You do have the static /dev option :)

Anyway, no, I don't want to break your boxes at all, that's why I want
to stay with the LSB naming scheme, which the default devfs config also
supports.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list