On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 06:40:22AM -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:57:55AM +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote: > > A problem with MAKEDEV is, that it places the MAKEDEV *binary* into > > /dev. This is a really bad place for it; devfs under 2.4 removed it and > > buildsystems which need a special /dev will remove it also. > > Unix tradition is the essential reason for this. Nothing more. The wording in FHS [1] seems a bit vague about this case. Opinions? Nalin [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#SPECIFICOPTIONS4
