On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:10:45 -0600 »Q« <boxc...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:45:33 +0200 > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [about udev and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y] > > A news item about this is coming down the wire very soon now (aka > > within hours judging by the thread on -dev). > > It's there now. Among other things, it mentions checking the /dev > entry in fstab, if there is one. I don't have one, but I'm curious. > Is it the udev-mount service in my default runlevel that makes it > unnecessary to have /dev in fstab? Also, what would be the reasons > for adding a /dev entry?
yes it's udev-mount: if ! grep -qs devtmpfs /proc/filesystems; then eerror "CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y is required in your kernel configuration" eerror "for this version of udev to run successfully." eerror "This requires immediate attention." if ! mountinfo -q /dev; then mount -n -t tmpfs dev /dev busybox mdev -s mkdir /dev/pts fi I don't see any good reason whatsoever to add /dev to fstab, unless you want to change the default mount options for some reason > > > Unfortunately, it's too late for you now but at least many other > > users will see the message before they emerge world and save them > > some pain > > Yeah. I use elogv to look at anything with warnings or errors after > an emerge, and I can't explain how I overlooked the bright red notice > this time. > > Normally, I follow this group and know what has come up for people > running ~arch (or if I don't *know*, I at least remember there's to > keep my eyes open for). But I've given up on following udev threads > here, which tend to get pretty noisy. > > Of course there's no substitute for paying attention, but it's nice to > get a news item, even nicer if it comes before things hit stable. :-) I seem to have lost my virtual consoles recently, courtesy of udev-197 :-( Haven't figured out why yet, I suppose I'll have to read all those noisy udev threads again -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com