On 5/27/2012 10:39 AM, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Allin Cottrell<cottrell@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
There's no reference to /dev/pts or /dev/shm in fstab, but at run
time /dev/pts is populated and there's a tmpfs mounted on /dev/shm.
How can I tell whether I need the systemd-tmpfiles workaround?
The mountpoints are created by systemd[0], so no need to do anything
to make this work.
So... machines without systemd are screwed, unless they resurrect the
bootscripts that copied these nodes, from way back before udevd started
to do it itself?
Yes.
Whenever someone decides to violate the separation of utilities that
make Unix like distributions so powerful, the end user is harmed. This
is what the people behind systemd has chosen to do, yet falsely claim
otherwise (after all, if you cannot use udev without building the rest
of systemd, they are not separate).
Given its current direction, I suspect that systemd will suffer the some
fate as Hal. That is, it will become something that the community
rejects because it attempted to absorb everything. Unfortunately, end
users suffer in the mean time.
The sooner we fork udev, the better.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
