On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:06:26 +0000 (UTC), James wrote: > > > Let's be clear: static-dev is NOT a workaround. It is a full proper > > > solution for the case when a dynamic device node solution is not > > > desired. > > Well, I can think of embedded (linux) systems, a lock-down server and > machine(s) loaded up with (NFV) Network Function Virtuals, as prime > examples where a static dev is very useful; albeit a management pain if > one is not careful. This is a very interesting topic for me.
Whatever your setup, you need something to manage your entries in /dev. That's why there is a dependency on the dev-manager/virtual. What you use is up to you: udev, eudev, systemd, devfsd, busybox or doing it manually, is up to you. That's why any of those satisfy the dev-manager virtual. That's why Alan said that static-dev is not a work around, it is a valid choice that sets up a limited number of static nodes that you then manage yourself. You are the dev-manager. -- Neil Bothwick Don't judge a book by its movie.
pgpsuCuIO7vT_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
