I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
rendered my system unbootabled.
Can somebody point me to info regarding /.dev. I have dig
in /usr/share/doc/udev and Google but found nothing.
Regards
mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
Le Mer 9 Février 2005 15:30, Maykel Moya a écrit :
> I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> rendered my system unbootabled.
>
> Can somebody point me to info regarding /.dev. I have dig
> in /usr/share/doc/udev and Google but found nothing.
read your /etc/init.d/udev
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:30:12 -0400, Maykel Moya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> rendered my system unbootabled.
.dev is just a binding to the original (static) /dev/ that is created
before udev mounts it's dynamic /dev over the exis
Maykel Moya wrote:
I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
rendered my system unbootabled.
Can somebody point me to info regarding /.dev. I have dig
in /usr/share/doc/udev and Google but found nothing.
$ mount | grep \\.dev
/dev on /.dev type unknown (rw,bind)
When udev s
Hello!
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:30:12AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote:
> I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> rendered my system unbootabled.
udev mounts a tmpfs over /dev to not disturb your (old) static /dev.
To make your old /dev available, udev bind-mounts it to /
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 17:30 +, Sam Morris wrote:
> Maykel Moya wrote:
> > I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> > rendered my system unbootabled.
> >
> > Can somebody point me to info regarding /.dev. I have dig
> > in /usr/share/doc/udev and Google but found not
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 06:51:11PM +0100, Björn Krombholz wrote:
> .dev is just a binding to the original (static) /dev/ that is created
> before udev mounts it's dynamic /dev over the existing one. So if you
> rm everything in /.dev you would delete everything in /dev which might
> be needed at bo
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing I do know is that traditional apps like df (and anything
> that uses stat(), I guess) don't know about /.dev, and so return
> false information:
>
> $ df
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hda39843
Maykel Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> rendered my system unbootabled.
What led you to do such a thing? The idea "I don't know what this is,
so I should delete it" is rampant, and disastrous.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [
* Maykel Moya wrote:
> I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> rendered my system unbootabled.
File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
# /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
# if you don't like this, remove /.dev/.
Norbert
--
To UNS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hoi,
Am Mi den 9. Feb 2005 um 22:07 schriebst Du:
> What led you to do such a thing? The idea "I don't know what this is,
> so I should delete it" is rampant, and disastrous.
I don't think so. Well, maybe not directely removing somethink but the
Sy
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:07:33 -0800 (PST), Thomas Bushnell BSG
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maykel Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I recently realized that I had /.dev, after that, I rm -fr it what
> > rendered my system unbootabled.
>
> What led you to do such a thing? The idea "I don't know
On Feb 09, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> how does /.dev fit in with the fhs?
It does not, but there is no other place to put it. Just do not look at
it and it will not bother you.
If you really can't stand it, then unmount the bind mount and rmdir the
directory. It will not be created a
On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
Don't.
> # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
> # if you don't like this, remove /.dev/.
"Remove /.dev/" does not mean "rm -rf it".
Considering that the line above
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:46:03PM +0100, Olaf Conradi wrote:
> I've always found the existence of ./dev a bit weird in a directory
> listing of /.
> I'd rather have it in /var/lib/dev, but maybe that's just me ;)
... which would mean that it would become unaccessible (and thus
meaningless) as th
Mowgli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am Mi den 9. Feb 2005 um 22:07 schriebst Du:
> > What led you to do such a thing? The idea "I don't know what this is,
> > so I should delete it" is rampant, and disastrous.
>
> I don't think so. Well, maybe not directely removing somethink but the
> Systema
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:57:27 +0100, GOMBAS Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:46:03PM +0100, Olaf Conradi wrote:
> > I've always found the existence of ./dev a bit weird in a directory
> > listing of /.
> > I'd rather have it in /var/lib/dev, but maybe that's just me ;)
>
GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> ... which would mean that it would become unaccessible (and thus
> meaningless) as the real /var gets mounted later in the boot process.
> You cannot reliably put it under a directory that is not guaranteed to
> be on the root file system; that leaves roughly /, /etc, /bin, /l
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 09, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > how does /.dev fit in with the fhs?
> It does not, but there is no other place to put it. Just do not look at
> it and it will not bother you.
that's a great line of reasoning.
To mount inside the /dev seems a very good idea.
Something like /dev/compatxx, /dev/stddev, /dev/old, /dev/original or else.
About the fhs ... standards can change.
But the unixes fhs is uglier enougth as it is.
:)
Em Qua 09 Fev 2005 20:42, David Mandelberg escreveu:
> GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> > .
On Feb 10, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> seriously though, is there really no where else that it can go? i'm not
No.
> too familiar with udev, but i'm guessing that it has to go on the root
> partition, or at the least it can't go under a directory that could
> possibly be mounted ove
On Feb 09, David Mandelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about this:
Nice try, but:
- / is not writeable at the time this needs to run
- it's too much complex anyway to be worth implementing (even using bind
--move)
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, David Mandelberg wrote:
> GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> > ... which would mean that it would become unaccessible (and thus
> > meaningless) as the real /var gets mounted later in the boot process.
> > You cannot reliably put it under a directory that is not guaranteed to
> > be on the
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:13:40AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > must it be mounted for everyone, or is it merely a convenience/necessity
> > for a few people in specific situations? if the latter is true, wouldn't
> For people who want MAKEDEV to keep updating the static /dev.
that hardly sound
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > seriously though, is there really no where else that it can go? i'm not
> No.
>
> > too familiar with udev, but i'm guessing that it has to go on the root
> > partition, or at the least it can't go un
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
> Don't.
>
> > # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
> > # if you don't like this, remove /.dev/.
> "Remove /.dev/" does
Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, David Mandelberg wrote:
>>TMPDEV="`mktemp -d /tmp/devXX || { mkdir /.dev; echo -n /.dev; }`"
>>mount -o bind /dev $TMPDEV
>>mount -t tmpfs none /dev
>>mkdir /dev/orig
>>mount -o bind $TMPDEV /dev/orig
>>umount $TMPDEV
>>rm -rf $TMPDEV
>
>
> Unless of cour
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:01:00 -0500, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:13:40AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > must it be mounted for everyone, or is it merely a convenience/necessity
> > > for a few people in specific situations? if the latter is true, wouldn't
>
I demand that Marco d'Itri may or may not have written...
> On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
> Don't.
>> # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
>> # if you don't like this, remove /.dev/.
> "Remov
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 12:43 -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One thing I do know is that traditional apps like df (and anything
> > that uses stat(), I guess) don't know about /.dev, and so return
> > false information:
> >
> > $ df
> > Filesystem 1K-
* Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
> > # if you don't like this, remove /.dev/.
>
> "Remove /.dev/" does not mean "rm -rf it".
What does it mean instead?
> Considering that the li
Once upon a time Ron Johnson said...
> On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 12:43 -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > One thing I do know is that traditional apps like df (and anything
> > > that uses stat(), I guess) don't know about /.dev, and so return
> > > false inf
On 09-Feb-05, 19:12 (CST), Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "So what?", you say. Well, data should only be listed once, not
> twice. gtkdiskfree sums up all total and free disk space, and
> having /.dev in there totally distorts the truth.
If you don't have a fs mounted, df won't show i
GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
You cannot reliably put it under a directory that is not guaranteed to
be on the root file system; that leaves roughly /, /etc, /bin, /lib and
/sbin. Pick your favourite :-)
So what's wrong with /lib/udev/pre-udev-dev or /lib/udev/real-rootfs-dev
or similar?
Cheers,
aj
--
To U
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 19:24 -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 09-Feb-05, 19:12 (CST), Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "So what?", you say. Well, data should only be listed once, not
> > twice. gtkdiskfree sums up all total and free disk space, and
> > having /.dev in there totally di
On Feb 10, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "So what?", you say. Well, data should only be listed once, not
> twice. gtkdiskfree sums up all total and free disk space, and
> having /.dev in there totally distorts the truth.
This means that gtkdiskfree is broken, and should be fixed to un
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 02:08:16AM +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > "Remove /.dev/" does not mean "rm -rf it".
>
> What does it mean instead?
It's what politicians do: quote something out-of-context and pretend it
means something entirely different than in the original context :-)
/etc/init.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) schrieb:
> On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
> Don't.
>
>> # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
>> # if you don't like this, remove /.dev/.
> "Remove /.dev/" does
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 10:11 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "So what?", you say. Well, data should only be listed once, not
> > twice. gtkdiskfree sums up all total and free disk space, and
> > having /.dev in there totally distorts the truth.
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:29 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) schrieb:
>
> > On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
> > Don't.
> >
> >> # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directo
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:29 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) schrieb:
>>
>> > On Feb 09, Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> File a bugreport... /etc/init.d/udev says:
>> > Don't.
>> >
>> >> # /.dev is use
On 10-Feb-05, 08:01 (CST), Frank K?ster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This does not excuse the fact that someone with (a) root access,
> > and (b) without the proper knowledge, went around rm'ing things.
>
> I thought Debian was a distribution targetted at a wide audience,
> including experience
Quoting Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:29 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> # If you don't like this, umount /.dev/ and remove the empty directory.
> >
> > This does not excuse the fact that someone with (a) root access,
>
On 10 February 2005 15:31 (CST), Steve Greenland wrote:
[...]
> Consider this:
>
> "I don't know much about cars, just how to drive one. I looked under the
> hood, and there were all these messy wires every where. I didn't like
> the way it looked, so I cut them all out. Now my car won't start."
>
* Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 10-Feb-05, 08:01 (CST), Frank K?ster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This does not excuse the fact that someone with (a) root access,
> > > and (b) without the proper knowledge, went around rm'ing things.
> >
> > I thought Debian was a distribution targetted at a wi
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is true. But really, I thank that what happened shows a lack of common
> sense. There is little helping that. Imagine that you take your car to
> get serviced. The mechanic replaces some part. Next time you open the hood,
> you see a part
Norbert Tretkowski writes:
> There's no label saying "if you don't like these wires, remove them".
And cars never grow unwanted wires.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 10, Lech Karol Paw?aszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well... not really... it's something like this:
> "I don't know much about cars, just how to drive one. I looked under the
> hood,
> and there were all the messy wires everywhere. And I remember, that one of
> them wasn't there when i
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 06:19:56AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> I'll file bugs against gtkdiskfree & pydf. Now that I understand
> this more (thanks, MdI), I see that df has a way to exclude bind
> mounts.
>
> $ df -T
> FilesystemType 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/hda
On Feb 10, "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In something like df I think the sensible thing to do is just to
> continue to list all bind mounts, even when it's redundant.
The sensible thing to do is to check major/minor and report file systems
only once.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, "J. Bruce Fields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In something like df I think the sensible thing to do is just to
> > continue to list all bind mounts, even when it's redundant.
> The sensible thing to do is to check majo
Frank Küster wrote:
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is true. But really, I thank that what happened shows a lack of common
sense. There is little helping that. Imagine that you take your car to
get serviced. The mechanic replaces some part. Next time you open the hood,
yo
On Thursday 10 of February 2005 18:22, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 10, Lech Karol Paw?aszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well... not really... it's something like this:
> > "I don't know much about cars, just how to drive one. I looked under the
> > hood, and there were all the messy wires every
Roberto C. Sanchez writes:
> I said "snap it off," not "carefully remove with appropriate tools."
> Anyone who goes mucking around their filesystem removing potentially
> critical compenents without thinking about it and using the proper tools
> for the job, is not thinking straight.
Rm is the too
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 19:14 +0100, Lech Karol Pawłaszek wrote:
> On Thursday 10 of February 2005 18:22, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Feb 10, Lech Karol Paw?aszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well... not really... it's something like this:
> > > "I don't know much about cars, just how to drive one
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:18 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Roberto C. Sanchez writes:
> > I said "snap it off," not "carefully remove with appropriate tools."
> > Anyone who goes mucking around their filesystem removing potentially
> > critical compenents without thinking about it and using the proper
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:52:39PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 12:18 -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sanchez writes:
> > > I said "snap it off," not "carefully remove with appropriate tools."
> > > Anyone who goes mucking around their filesystem removing potentially
>
> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Norbert Tretkowski writes:
>> There's no label saying "if you don't like these wires, remove
>> them".
John> And cars never grow unwanted wires.
You obviously need to run "apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade" on
you
Lech Karol PawÅaszek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be honest - i don't care what you think about people who "cut
> extra wire from their car". They can be morons or whoever they want
> to be. I would point out that one might be suprised that a hidden
> directory appeared in his/hers root direct
Thomas Bushnell writes:
> Even if one thinks "I've been compromised", it is not the right thing to
> immediately delete the files which are the evidence of the intrusion.
People often do the wrong thing, especially when agitated. When we notice
something they could hurt themselves on we should tr
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > Even if one thinks "I've been compromised", it is not the right thing to
> > immediately delete the files which are the evidence of the intrusion.
>
> People often do the wrong thing, especially when agitated. When we notice
>
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please read what I wrote more carefully. I said "snap it off," not
> "carefully remove with appropriate tools." Anyone who goes mucking
> around their filesystem removing potentially critical compenents
> without thinking about it and using the p
On Friday 11 of February 2005 03:05, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thomas Bushnell writes:
> > > Even if one thinks "I've been compromised", it is not the right thing
> > > to immediately delete the files which are the evidence of the
> > > intrusion.
> >
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:05:15PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> "carefully remove with appropriate tools." Anyone who goes mucking
> around their filesystem removing potentially critical compenents
> without thinking about it and using the proper tools for the job,
> is not thinking straight
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 06:51:11PM +0100, Björn Krombholz wrote:
> AFAIR the only device needed on my system was
> /dev/null.
/dev/null and /dev/console, since the kernel needs the latter to open
the initial console and pass that to init.
Until that kernelbug gets fixed, at least.
Ingo
--
$
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:46:29PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 09, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > how does /.dev fit in with the fhs?
> It does not, but there is no other place to put it. Just do not look at
> it and it will not bother you.
Just thought there may be a better pl
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Ingo Saitz wrote:
> Just thought there may be a better place to put it: /dev/.dev
> It just takes some more fiddling to mount it there:
>
> # mount the old /dev to /dev/.dev
> # since /dev is hidden, I need to bind mount / somwhere else first
> mkdir /dev/.dev /dev/.tmp
> moun
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 23:16 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:05:15PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > "carefully remove with appropriate tools." Anyone who goes mucking
> > around their filesystem removing potentially critical compenents
> > without thinking about it
By popular request, the comment now states:
# /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
# if you do not like this then rmdir /.dev/ after unmounting it.
And for the benefit of another class of users who run commands without
understand their consequences, I added this
> > 'rm' is not a proper tool for file removal?
>
> Rules to live by:
> Look before you leap.
> Measure twice, cut once.
> Google it!
This is a very good set of rules if all of our intendend users are experts.
:)
And even to experts...
If I have not readed this here
I would look at it.
An
* Marco d'Itri wrote:
> By popular request, the comment now states:
>
> # /.dev is used by /sbin/MAKEDEV to access the real /dev directory.
> # if you do not like this then rmdir /.dev/ after unmounting it.
Thanks.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 18:33 -0200, Lucas de Sousa wrote:
> > > 'rm' is not a proper tool for file removal?
> >
> > Rules to live by:
> > Look before you leap.
> > Measure twice, cut once.
> > Google it!
>
> This is a very good set of rules if all of our intendend users are experts.
> > > Rules to live by:
> > > Look before you leap.
> > > Measure twice, cut once.
> > > Google it!
> >
> > This is a very good set of rules if all of our intendend users are
> > experts.
>
> So you are saying that these are *not* good rules for amateurs?
It is
But is not wise to develop sof
On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 20:11 -0200, Lucas de Sousa wrote:
> > > > Rules to live by:
> > > > Look before you leap.
> > > > Measure twice, cut once.
> > > > Google it!
> > >
> > > This is a very good set of rules if all of our intendend users are
> > > experts.
> >
> > So you are saying that the
> "Ron" == Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ron> Rules to live by:
Ron> Look before you leap.
Isn't the modern version:
"Leap before you look..."
(and then contact your lawyer[1]...)
Ron> Measure twice, cut once.
Cut twice, measure once.
Ron> Google it!
Loose it!
* Lucas de Sousa
| Assuming that is unclean installation junk.
Assume makes an ass of u an' me.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
[Tollef Fog Heen]
> Assume makes an ass of u an' me.
Why do people keep circulating this saying? It makes no sense.
Normally, assuming only ever has the power to make an ass of the person
who did the assuming, i.e. "me", not "u and me". And even then, it's
not like you could get very far in lif
* Peter Samuelson
| [Tollef Fog Heen]
| > Assume makes an ass of u an' me.
|
| Why do people keep circulating this saying? It makes no sense.
| Normally, assuming only ever has the power to make an ass of the person
| who did the assuming, i.e. "me", not "u and me". And even then, it's
| not l
On that scenario does not seem a unreasonable action to delete it without
looking. It just 15 minutes to take it back.
I would take more time google'ing it, than reinstaling it.
But you missed my point.
Even the people here that supports the /.dev mount agrees that is not the
right place for
On Feb 17, Lucas de Sousa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that there only a few places to it.
It /will/ be moved to /dev/.old-dev/dev/ at some point in the future
(I need to coordinate this with at least the makedev maintainer), but for
a different reason (#294968).
> I do believe that
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I do believe that the right thing is to be disabled by default.
> No.
Well, I've just checked and
mount --move /dev /temp-mount-point
mount --bind /dev /where-you-want-it
mount --move /temp-mount-point /dev
works on a live system
* Lucas de Sousa
| Even the people here that supports the /.dev mount agrees that is not the
| right place for it. It does not match the FHS, and it is a bit weird.
The FHS, like policy, documents current practice. If /.dev catches
on, it'll be in the FHS somehow.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 10:54 +0100, GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:04:34AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>
> > > I do believe that the right thing is to be disabled by default.
> > No.
>
> Well, I've just checked and
>
> mount --move /dev /temp-mount-point
> mount --bind /dev /wher
83 matches
Mail list logo
