Feb 25, 2011 03:11:51 PM, Bruce Dobbs wrote:
> I haven't looked at this code in quite a while, but I don't
> see these instructions as contradictory.
Hi Bruce,
I commented out 'cp -a /lib/udev/devices/null /dev' in "udev" script.
and did a reboot.
_I_ didn't notice any changes (messages, etc.) in the console log on boot.
Nor in dmesg.
However, it's possible that my basic system differs somehow, somewhere
on LFS boot.
> Newer versions of udev or the kernel may make some of these procedures
> unnecessary, but they don't hurt anything.
> A device node takes up 1 directory entry and no additional space.
Agreed.
BTW, I didn't say they are "contradictory". Just
>> redundant (and _misleading_).
Misleading (IMHO) because either use both copies (i.e., _and_
console) or none at all. Let's not forget, though, I started with
"ruminations", not "complaints" (or some such).
> I don't understand what appears to be a sense of urgency in your post.
No urgency (or sense of it) at all:
>> _finally_ ...
>> this fallacy goes back quite a few iterations from 166.
However, I apologize for the word fallacy. Way too strong
and misleading:).
> What are the drawbacks of the procedure as is?
None. It works. I did express my gratitude to all involved
for their hard work to make our life easier.
---
I do have a confusion underlying this thread.
I have claimed (possibly wrongly), the Udev philosophy assumes a /dev
absolutely empty. Are the initial ("metal") null and console nodes
an LFS specific requirement (based on its particular boot/log sequence
I tested and confirmed by 2.6.21),
is it "sanctioned" by Udev developers,
and/or a "pure" Udev is supposed to start with /dev really empty?
Thank you very much,
-- Alex
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
