On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:52:20PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > If we can move away from some of our devfs-like names, we stand to > > reclaim a lot of memory from everyone's machines. As an example, if we > > drop all of the tty/pts/vc/vcc symlinks, and just go with the default > > kernel name, we save 2.5Mb of space in tempfs/ramfs. I've done this on > > my machines and everything seems to work just fine (it looks like > > everything that was trying to use a tty node was just using the symlink > > anyway.) > > > > So, anyone have any objections to me changing the default udev naming > > scheme in this manner? > > 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.
As the default devfs configuration in gentoo is to use the LSB naming scheme, only people who will have customized their devfs configuration would have issues. Oh, and there seem to be some people that rely on the devfs naming scheme for block devices in /etc/fstab, for some odd reason. Anyway, I don't think this will break any devfs usages, they can keep using 2.4 and devfs all they want, the rest of the world will move on :) thanks, greg k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
