On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 18:49 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > I was disappointed when I saw that LFS seemingly ineluctably > was wedded to udev. I see that BLFS has some hints for doing > things without it, but then leaves the sysadmin to his own > devices (no pun intended) thereafter, with a one sentence > mention of mknod.
Well, there's certainly nothing stopping you from building LFS without udev - if you're knowledgeable enough to create the necessary device nodes by some other mechanism. But there's no sense in taking that approach in the core LFS itself - udev is a fundamental piece of every modern distribution, and increasingly, a hard requirement for desktop environments. Emphasizing that last point - the desktop projects are coming to regard udev as *the* hardware management service on Linux, supplying information and notifications about available hardware. If you want a service like Network Manager to handle WiFi / 3G / VPN connectivity, you *must* use udev. If you want to plug in in a flash drive and have Gnome open up a file manager window, you *must* use udev. If you want Xorg to automatically deal with whatever hardware you have without needing a config file - well, pretty soon, you'll need to use udev. Now, these things might not bother you too much - your system, your rules, after all. But it should make it clear why LFS is wedded to udev - because for most purposes, it's just not optional anymore. Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
