On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:35:27 +0100 Ken Moffat <[email protected]> wrote:
> Although I have a lot of respect for Al Viro's opinions about this > area, I like the ease of connecting to my usb printer - ISTR that > before udev its address was somewhat variable, but I might well be > mistaken. I only have one usb printer so the kernel always calls it /dev/usb/lp0. I suppose if I had several usb printers and I kept plugging them into different usb sockets I could use systemd to give them consistent /dev names but I suspect it would also be possible to write a custom /sbin/hotplug script that would achieve the same thing (I don't have multiple printers available to test with). > Also, udev is a common feature in most (GNU/)Linux > distributions and I think that LFS should not diverge from the norm > just for the sake of it (although, if full systemd becomes the norm, > I will probably change that view:) Most distros install a _lot_ of stuff that's not included in LFS (Gnome, KDE, etc). We put that stuff into BLFS. It's a judgement call what goes into LFS and what goes into BLFS. I think udev/systemd should be in BLFS. Seeing all the effort being put into extracting udev from systemd reminds me of the scene from Shrek where the Donkey first sees the Princess at night time (as an ogre, like Shrek) and he says "Oh my god, you've eaten the princess! Hold on Princess we'll get you out of there!" I think we should just accept this big ugly ogre called systemd into BLFS and move on. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
