Subject: Re: Is there a devfs in the works?
To: Chapman Flack <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Laight <email@example.com>
Date: 09/06/2004 20:26:12
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 01:58:53PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> I saw a lot of good devfs ideas in the mail archives, but can't tell if
> there's current activity. There seems to be an empty CVS directory for
> it in miscfs. The ideas that seemed best to me involved some
> config syntax to specify initial naming/ownership/mode defaults, with an
> on-disk db the kernel updates if the user changes those attributes after
I've not seen any activity - apart from one day when I copied kernfs into
a directory tree called devfs. I've since deleted it!
> It would be so much tidier than the MFS MAKEDEV magic, and I really like
> the idea of seeing only the devices it makes sense to see.
There are other tricks, like auto creating entries for clone drivers
> Btw (I see it's been mentioned before in the archives) if it's still
> MFS MAKEDEV we're stuck with for a while, it fails if there are not
> (static) chown and chgrp in /bin or /sbin.
MAKEDEV should work these days, it uses the -o and -g options to mknod.
> Btw^2, is there anything
> wrong with having dynamic binaries and having a /lib for 'essential
> shared libraries' as they say in the HFS standard?
libc is in /lib, the 'problem' is that some programs are in /usr.
The actual fix is to realise that disks are big enough to allow all of /usr
(which is basically readonly as it no longer contains user files) to be
in the root filsystem. However some people insist on it being otherwise...
David Laight: firstname.lastname@example.org