On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:25PM +0000, Freminlins wrote: > Kris, > > On 28/01/07, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >I not understand this no sentence :) > > > Sorry, I didn't read what I typed. I meant to type "Was the effect of this > considered at all?"
Yes it was. The benefits of dynamic devices were considered to outweight the downsides of having to mount a devfs instance. > What reasons, other than cosmetic, do you have for not wanting to do > >this? > > > Well, I am sure you would agree it is simpler to mknod for a small subset of > /dev than to mount a devfs. Also, it means I have to migrate my existing set > up which works perfectly as it is. Actually I disagree. Once you write the simple devfs ruleset it is a single command to instantiate a new /dev. You don't have to worry about making each individual device node N times and possibly making a mistake. Of course you probably have a script to do this now, but that just means you need to adjust your script as part of your migration strategy. > It isn't just cosmetic, it really is more awkward than running mknod. I take > your point that there's no technical reason not to do this, but it isn't > pretty. To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get over :-) Kris
pgpnzCOgZwbcz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
