On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 05:49:48PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 12:55 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 01:36:39PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > I'm not averse to using it, but if you're not changing the device > > > names, most of the useful functionality could be done just by > > > using the dev.d callouts without actually having udev manage > > > /dev. > > > > That's a good point, and should be worthy of allowing udev to be > > installed by default. That way things like HAL and gnome-vfs can still > > work properly, as they chain off of those callouts. > > Basically, yes... and that then makes for a much smaller and simpler > udev. nanodev :) Basically, just the callouts so that HAL can be made > happy and you have a nice static /dev. > > None of the complicated "which ruleset and set of shell scripts do I > need to run", etc. Makes things far more predictable, lower impact and > actually gives the real benefit that people are wanting to take > advantage of without the more controversial bits. Wow, 58kb is too big for you? :) Sure, I could strip udev down to something even smaller like what you mentioned, but I don't think it will be worth it to anyone, as you can operate udev in that same mode today with no changes needed to it. thanks, greg k-h
