:On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
:
:> DEVFS itself works fine however a subsystem it required to be a useful
:> abstraction was vandalised and stripped out by some people who "didn't get
:> it" and it has not yet been replaced by equivalent code.
:
:It seems more correct (to me) to state that there was a furious
:disagreement over whether or not to allow some memory of file permissions
:in devfs. Since there was never any agreement, DEVFS has smoldered. I
:think there's general agreement it would be a good thing to have, but that
:argument over how to keep user configurations must be handled.
:
:Saying it was dumped by people who "didn't get it" isn't quite correct,
:just people who didn't agree with your viewpoint on permissions. It
:wasn't only your viewpoint, I know there were many other highly qualified
:folks who agreed with you, but there wasn't much spirit of compromise
:evinced.
:
:
:----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics,
:213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing.
Well, I tried using it months ago but it crashed the machine a lot :-)
Those bugs are supposedly fixed now, right? Can I go back to using it?
It seems to me that we have to be able to change ownership/modes for
DEVFS devices to deal with tty's and pty's properly. Are people arguing
over that or are people arguing over whether the changes should be
persistent or not? Personally I don't care if they aren't persistent,
it's a simple matter to set things up in rc.local.
I really want to be able to use DEVFS for my diskless startup code. Right
now I have to wave my hands and do some magic to make /dev work right
for diskless BOOTP startups.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
