Re: [gentoo-user] busybox/mdev as a possible alternative to udev?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:25:45PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote > >> It does look like there will be some problems with Xorg and detecting >> input devices. I spent a few minuted digging around...and I have no >> leads on where Xorg ties into udev or hotplug. Heading to sleep for >> the night. This is getting interesting, though. > > One of the benefits of HAL was that X was supposed to start up just > fine without an xorg.conf. We all know how that turned out. Maybe we > will have to back to using xorg.conf. I prefer being in control of > things. On the other hand, maybe mdev can do similar detection. Actually, I kinda missed out on the whole HAL thing. A ways back, I jumped from Gentoo back to Ubuntu*. I got sick of Ubuntu and jumped to Arch just as HAL was majorly going out of style. I know this, because all the info on keeping an Arch system conflicted as to whether or not HAL was needed. Rather annoying. I bounced back to Ubuntu, and by the time I got back to Gentoo last summer, HAL was gone. I know what the HAL in Windows does, but I don't really know anything about what the HAL in Linux did. * I was stuck home with H1N1, had to work from home, and had my Gentoo box go down without enough experience to know how to fix it. If I wasn't stuck working from home, it wouldn't have been so critical. It was, though, so I wiped and installed Ubuntu so I could get things running again. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] busybox/mdev as a possible alternative to udev?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:25:45PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote > It does look like there will be some problems with Xorg and detecting > input devices. I spent a few minuted digging around...and I have no > leads on where Xorg ties into udev or hotplug. Heading to sleep for > the night. This is getting interesting, though. One of the benefits of HAL was that X was supposed to start up just fine without an xorg.conf. We all know how that turned out. Maybe we will have to back to using xorg.conf. I prefer being in control of things. On the other hand, maybe mdev can do similar detection. I'm volunteering for a candidate in the Ontario provincial election, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_2011 ) which is on October 6th. So I'll be a bit pressed for time till then. -- Walter Dnes
Re: [gentoo-user] busybox/mdev as a possible alternative to udev?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > There's another thread for complaining about the brokenness of the > proposed udev implementation. This one is for doing something about it. > After reading the udev-complaints thread, I joined the busybox list, and > asked if busybox's simple mdev feature could replace udev. See thread > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/35018 > > Apparently it can be done for "simple" systems, but there may be > problems for some of the more complex setups. Then again, these more > complex systems are the ones that would probably require /usr on the > same partition as /, in the first place (or else initramfs). See > message http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.busybox/35028 for details. > In addition to the "mdev" flag, I would recommend the "static" flag on > principle, especially if /usr is a separate partition. > > If we ever do get this working on a large scale, we may need to ask > the Gentoo developers for a "virtual/udev" ebuild, which could be > satisfied by busybox with the "mdev" flag, just like "virtual/mta" can > be satisfied by ssmtp with the "mta" flag. This would allow people to > choose whether they want udev or mdev. > > We should keep the discussion on this mailing list. Asking once if > it's possible is one thing. Flooding the busybox list with Gentoo- > specific questions would probably not be appreciated. It does look like there will be some problems with Xorg and detecting input devices. I spent a few minuted digging around...and I have no leads on where Xorg ties into udev or hotplug. Heading to sleep for the night. This is getting interesting, though. -- :wq
