Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:19:22PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
Another example is the udev delay.
What delay?
Gentoo was pretty much the _first_ distro to support udev. They helped
out immensely during early development of it, and was one of the major
reasons I became a Gentoo developer. The Gentoo udev implementation is
always better, and farther along than any other distro because of this.
I know it happened for good reasons
(I'm really honestly not complaining), but, aside from DSL and maybe
Slackware (and technically debian woody, sarge and sid both have udev),
we are the only distro in the top 10 to not have udev by default yet.
Again not a complaint, but something that really needs to happen ASAP
for computers that support it. I have to say in defense of the
udev/kernel guys, our mixed udev/devfs solution was very smooth. Great
job guys!
udev is one option that a user can use to control /dev on their box:
devfs, udev, or none. We aren't forcing any of those choices on a user
(well, the devfs one will be going away eventually due to it being
dropped from the kernel in about 6 months...) I don't see the issue here
at all.
As I said, great job! :) I was referring more to the stigma of running
udev by default with no devfs. I'm not sure how well the community was
aware of our elegant solution. It was certainly advertized well, so I
don't think its our fault. I personally know I got a bunch of emails
asking if Gentoo was going to support GNOME 2.8 because we "still used
devfs." Once I explained our (better) solution, they were ok. I just
think it lead to some confusion, that is all. Nothing we could have
done to avoid it.
Nathaniel
--
[email protected] mailing list
