Declan Moriarty wrote:
Actually, I was wrong. That .udev.tdb file will still exist. I was complaining I suppose that the approach was weak because a failure to mount the ramdisk would leave one with /dev populated by some nodes, and udev would piss off without even checking if the ones needed existed
Note the phrase "approach *was* weak" - like I said, we changed the bootscript after bug reports, and you're *still* complaining? I also note that you raised the same complaint on the linux-hotplug-devel list *after* receiving advice from this list. It's beginning to sound very much like a rant/FUD campaign than a genuine attempt to get help and follow advice that is given.
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
