Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-20 Thread waltdnes
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:05:52PM +0100, k...@aspodata.se wrote > Alec McKinnon: > > On 19/01/2016 18:51, k...@aspodata.se wrote: > ... > > > I have had no pain useing an old plain /dev. What's the pain ? > > take a machine running a desktop. Plug in a usb printer. Where's your node? > > To find

[gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-20 Thread James
aspodata.se> writes: > I'm new to gentoo, is there some special semantic to the "bgo #" ? WELCOME Karl! You'll find gentoo is full of traditional *nix users and minimalists. Don't let the progressives disturb your reticent ways... you are in good company.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-19 Thread karl
Alec McKinnon: > On 19/01/2016 18:51, k...@aspodata.se wrote: ... > > I have had no pain useing an old plain /dev. What's the pain ? > take a machine running a desktop. Plug in a usb printer. Where's your node? To find that out I'd investigate /sys/bus/usb, either directly or via usb-devices or

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-19 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 19/01/2016 18:51, k...@aspodata.se wrote: > James: >> aspodata.se> writes: > I found a workaround in the sys-fs/static-dev package. >> >> Interesting read :: bgo #107875 > > I'm new to gentoo, is there some special semantic to the "bgo #" ? > Let's be clear: static-dev is NOT a

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-19 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:06:26 + (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 >

[gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-19 Thread James
aspodata.se> writes: > > > I found a workaround in the sys-fs/static-dev package. Interesting read :: bgo #107875 > > 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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-19 Thread Alec Ten Harmsel
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 05:51:11PM +0100, k...@aspodata.se wrote: > James: > > aspodata.se> writes: > > > > > I found a workaround in the sys-fs/static-dev package. > > > > Interesting read :: bgo #107875 > > I'm new to gentoo, is there some special semantic to the "bgo #" ? bgo ==

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-19 Thread karl
James: > aspodata.se> writes: > > > > I found a workaround in the sys-fs/static-dev package. > > Interesting read :: bgo #107875 I'm new to gentoo, is there some special semantic to the "bgo #" ? > > > Let's be clear: static-dev is NOT a workaround. It is a full proper > > > solution for the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-18 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 18/01/2016 23:05, k...@aspodata.se wrote: > boxc...@gmx.net: >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:48:58 +0100 (CET) >> k...@aspodata.se wrote: > ... >>> What info is there on @system ? >>> I can change what's in @world, it seems to be the content of >>> /var/lib/portage/world. Is there a similar file for

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-18 Thread karl
Alan McKinnon: > On 18/01/2016 23:05, k...@aspodata.se wrote: ... > > I found a workaround in the sys-fs/static-dev package. > 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. Ok, fine with me (the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-18 Thread karl
boxc...@gmx.net: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:48:58 +0100 (CET) > k...@aspodata.se wrote: ... > > What info is there on @system ? > > I can change what's in @world, it seems to be the content of > > /var/lib/portage/world. Is there a similar file for @system ? > > It's in

[gentoo-user] Re: *dev-less gentoo

2016-01-18 Thread »Q«
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 19:48:58 +0100 (CET) k...@aspodata.se wrote: > Francisco Ares: > > 2016-01-18 15:15 GMT-02:00 : > > > > > # emerge -auDN @system > > > ... > > > [ebuild N ] virtual/dev-manager-0 > > > > > > How can I get rid of dev-manager-0 from @system ? > ... >