From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-136338-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>) id 1S7uOK-0004Sh-BX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:01:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F694E0A43; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:01:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.muc.de (colin.muc.de [193.149.48.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4506AE0966 for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 76458 invoked by uid 3782); 14 Mar 2012 20:00:43 -0000 Received: from acm.muc.de (pD951A359.dip.t-dialin.net [217.81.163.89]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:00:41 +0100 Received: (qmail 29536 invoked by uid 1000); 14 Mar 2012 19:59:43 -0000 Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:59:43 +0000 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-( Message-ID: <20120314195943.GA29514@acm.acm> References: <20120312092432.GA2959@acm.acm> <20120313073306.GC23544@waltdnes.org> <20120313130534.GB3457@acm.acm> <20120313190052.GA2430@waltdnes.org> <20120313194727.GB2536@acm.acm> <CADPrc83mmaeybgdEb0phBrp=fBcF3EWkpZawp0Mo8wpvDje5NQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120313210737.GD2536@acm.acm> <20120313213330.78c5ebf7@digimed.co.uk> <20120313222019.GE2536@acm.acm> <BE2692B5-6B6E-4454-8271-DCFA0A380506@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <BE2692B5-6B6E-4454-8271-DCFA0A380506@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b1f1b042-1fde-4758-879c-b602d92ac0f6 X-Archives-Hash: 9f8c6ecbe24335f4e08d0d764f50862b Good evening, Stroller. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 05:56:34PM +0000, Stroller wrote: > On 13 March 2012, at 22:20, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > =E2=80=A6=20 > >> udev does a *lot* more than that, for example the persistent naming = of > >> network interfaces. More significantly, it can run programs based on > >> device rules. > > This is where I start getting unhappy. Is there any need for this > > blurring? Having device nodes is essential to a linux system, and > > some programs use these nodes. Why must they be mashed together into= a > > tasteless mush? Is there some advantage to this I haven't twigged ye= t? > Ok, so my system has 2 network cards. Maybe I only use one of them, or > maybe they need to be physically connected in a certain way (one to > LAN, the other WAN).=20 > Before asking this question, with the knowledge and understanding that > we all already have, don't you have to first have to explain how you're > going to ensure that eth0 is always assigned by the system to the first > NIC and eth1 always to the second NIC? By kernel parameters? I once had a problem with the kernel not finding my hard drives. I solved it by putting the following kernel parameters into my lilo.conf: ide2=3D0xd000,0xd402,11 ide3=3D0xd800,0xdc02,11 The same could be done for network cards. > >> You could use this to argue that /usr should be mounted before udev = is > >> started, but you could just as well use it to argue that udev should= not > >> be trying to run such rules at the boot runlevel. > > Or that udev shouldn't have "rules". I still don't understand the ba= sic > > concept driving this thing. My HDDs don't need rules - they just nee= d a > > mapping from /dev/sd[ab] into device 8/0 and 8/16, and the appropriat= e > > drivers built into my kernel. > I'm assuming, then, that you're happy opening a terminal and typing > `mkdir /mnt/diskname` and mounting the device every time you plug a new > disk in? You might be taking me just a wee bit _too_ literally there. But yes, I mount each removable device I plug in. > Wouldn't it just be nice to plug in your USB devices - hard-drives and > flash drives - and have them magically appear on the desktop like they > do on every other desktop operating system? Yes. > Stroller. --=20 Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).