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 1Dr7GQ-000477-I4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:48:30 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j694lcsg026547; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 04:47:38 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 j694jvNC031567 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 04:45:58 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 j694jiq22836 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:45:44 -0700 Received: from greg by echidna.kroah.org with local (masqmail 0.2.19) id 1Dr7B1-2VU-00 for ; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:42:55 -0700 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 21:42:54 -0700 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] devfs is dead, let's move on Message-ID: <20050709044254.GA9611@kroah.com> References: <20050706224651.GA19853@kroah.com> <1120765940.30316.62.camel@localhost> <42CF4AEE.1070600@gentoo.org> 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: <42CF4AEE.1070600@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: cc13f1de-360a-4595-a014-074843ff5dc9 X-Archives-Hash: b8e87079563d41c45a378d21de1f1250 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