Yikes!
> In theory devfs is a good thing, but a lot of Linux user space is not
> ready for it. We will be packaging the 1.0.1 version of xfs with
> it turned off - currently debating if it should even be compiled into
> the kernel as Redhat has pointed out some problems with devfs to us.
>
> I would say you can live without it quite nicely, but if you want to do
> funky things with device handling and want to be able to read the output
> of ls in /dev then try turning it on.
I use the RedHat kernel distro. Would it be asking too much to have two
ISO's, one with devfs on and the other not? Or perhaps to have an option
in anaconda-SGI-MODIFIED that will install a devfs kernel if you check
it?
After a few teething problems I'm starting to understand devfs and being
able to do things like "Oh, it's on bus0/target0" blah is really good
when you can't work out what the device is called.
(For example, I would really love to have it on my FreeBSD box because I
just can't understand what ad1se1 actually means. At least if I had
devfs lumbering along I could say something like
/dev/ide/bus0/target0/lun0/part1 - it's long winded but it gets there.)
DSL
--
"And the winner is
InUnifiedCanadianAboriginalSyllabics"
- Larry Wall et al in Programming Perl
|