On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > Yes. The userlevel tool can't handle other things without recompiling.
>
> Don't worry about that. I can add a rule to devfsd so it creates
> appropriate compatibility entries.
But the userlevel tool needs fixed too. Recompiling is fine, as long as
it is easy to configure, a config file might be nice also.
I know devfsd is nice and good, but I don't use it. At this point I have
ALL my programs working without it.
> > I can't use /dev/lvm, too because this is the name of the control file
> > without lvm (and the lvm tools will barf if this is a dircetory.
>
> Well, how about another directory name? Can you think of something
> else that would be appropriate? And no, "LVM" is not on!
How about releasing a new version of the userlevel tools. Just list it as
the required version in the Changes file. Have the new version check to
see if /dev/lvm is a directory or file. It probally isn't the best idea
to assume too much based on that fact, but it could be used as a basis for
devfs vs. traditional /dev compatibility in one executable without needing
a recompile.
> But we really should stop namespace pollution in /dev, and doing it
> before 2.4 is released is the best time. In fact, given that this
> patch has only gone in recently, I'd be inclined to go with the names
> I suggested and just break the userspace tools. People have to expect
> that things may change before a production kernel is released.
We just required a modutils upgrade. No one really complained. A few
people (not many at all) cried about things breaking. But a quick pointer
to the Changes file set them straight. So yes, do this now.
-Chris
--
Two penguins were walking on an iceburg. The first one said to the
second, "you look like you are wearing a tuxedo." The second one said,
"I might be..."
--David Lynch, Twin Peaks
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
