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
