On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:06:26 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:

> > > Let's be clear: static-dev is NOT a workaround. It is a full proper
> > > solution for the case when a dynamic device node solution is not 
> > > desired.  
> 
> Well, I can think of embedded (linux) systems, a lock-down server and
> machine(s) loaded up with (NFV) Network Function Virtuals, as prime
> examples where a static dev is very useful; albeit a management pain if
> one is not careful. This is a very interesting topic for me.

Whatever your setup, you need something to manage your entries in /dev.
That's why there is a dependency on the dev-manager/virtual. What you use
is up to you: udev, eudev, systemd, devfsd, busybox or doing it manually,
is up to you. That's why any of those satisfy the dev-manager virtual.
That's why Alan said that static-dev is not a work around, it is a valid
choice that sets up a limited number of static nodes that you then manage
yourself. You are the dev-manager.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't judge a book by its movie.